The point wouldn’t be that the whole thing then smells like a long-hatched anti-Trump conspiracy (though it does)....
The point is that seemingly everyone in the WB’s network of outrage, from the person who told the WB about the call to Col. Vindman (the National Security Council Ukraine expert who’s testified before Rep. Schiff’s impeachment panel) to Ambassador William Taylor (who’d written a text calling it “crazy” to hold-up aid to Ukraine “for help in a political campaign”) to the aide in Schiff’s office consulted by the WB may be sincerely, passionately inflating the importance of Trump's sin--and deflating Biden's-- because to them aiding Ukraine is wildly important and Joe Biden is a compatriot, mentor or hero.
Voters and the senators— who will have to determine whether Trump's tactics were a "high crime”— may have a less fraught perspective and discount the offense accordingly. That would be harder to do if the prime accusers weren't all vehement anti-Russia Ukrainiacs....
This isn't like a drug deal where an undercover informant can drop a dime and then disappear while the perp is tried. We know the drug deal was a drug deal. We don't know what kind of a deal this was. What was Trump's intent? Was he interested in actual corruption, or was that a fake concern? How did the Ukrainians interpret it -- as a serious threat to the aid or just a classic Trump feint to be abandoned relatively quickly if resisted? What was the meaning of the demand for a press conference — was the idea to lock Zelensky into the investigation or to give Trump some cheap oppo optics? Did any of the pro-Ukraine Trump administration conspirators express any doubts about their outrage?
November 6, 2019
"But what if the WB is a vehement Ukraine hawk, with strong ties to Joe Biden and Democrats?"
Writes Mickey Kaus, explaining why the identity of whistleblower is important even though we have the transcript:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
134 comments:
Words continue to mean things. That person is not a whistleblower. Come on, people. Don't ever give in to the Left's language heist. Stop the conversation at step one when they misuse a word.
Kaus appears to be ignoring the corrected Sondland testimony as well as any contradictory facts.
This post is already outdated, given that Trump's own guy, Sondland, acknowledges the quid pro quo. Sondland is particularly convincing since he first tried to shade the truth to protect Trump and only when it was impossible to deny the quid pro quo did he change his story.
It all seemed like asking for help with the 2016 anti-Trump conspiracy. Who did what and help us get them out of our government.
That that's anti-democrat is a side effect of the criminals being democrats.
Everyone involved in this charade so far has strong ties to (the) Biden(s) and the Democrats. You need that when you're quick-casting roles for a farce.
Anti-Trump activism is fine but you have to resign from govenment first.
Everyone was trying to interfere in the Ukraine with taxpayer dollars.
They’re not going to remove Trump from office for something Biden and the Obama Administration openly bragged they did.
Not sure that I agree. Yes, there can be bad faith whistleblowers, and I assume that protection would disappear for any such person. Under some statutes, I believe that they can be prosecuted. However, the point of whistleblowers is to report potential misconduct so it can be investigated because an investigation would be unlikely if handle through normal chain of command, Let it be investigated. Let the actions be defended. It could turn out to be a colossal waste of time and money, In which case there will be a political price to pay. But none of these justifies, in my mind, setting a precedent for exposing whistleblowers.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/impeachment-drama-is-fraught-with-traps-for-sane-observers/
“the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.”
Irrelevant = Not good for the Dems.
We don’t need to hear from the whistleblower because we have the transcript.
But we need to keep calling witnesses because the transcript isn’t good enough.
Thus isn’t an inquiry seeking the truth.
It’s a con job seeking an outcome.
This is Russian Hoax 2.2. Planned, using plants in the intelligence community. There is a criminal investigation surrounding the Russian hoax. Crimes committed by those involved.
Now we are focused Ukraine. In order to examine what the Dems want us to focus on today, you first have to know why we are talking about secret interviews being conducted by the House Intelligence committee. Why are we talking about State Dept employees having their talking points being selectively leaked by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee?
The Intelligence Committee.
How does Kaus’ view of the predicate for impeachment square with that offered by Alan Dershowitz? Dershowitz says you need both a true crime plus abuse of office, otherwise you set the bar too low and invite (as the Hamilton warned in the Federalist Papers) impeachment for mere maladministration and partisan payback. But Kaus seems to think the “political” nature of impeachment means “partisan” and therefore we can dispense with a criminal predicate.
I favor Dershowitz’ view. Impeachment is major high-risk surgery, not a routine outpatient procedure.
As for the question of WB being named and subjected to the same truth-testing as any other witness, I don’t understand Kaus’ dithering. I don’t even see this tale-bearer as a true WB. He is just the persona through which the team of lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians is running this hit job. By his own admission he did not witness the events he alleges occurred. He is just a vector to deliver hearsay. I think we need to see and hear him tell his tales under oath, and then move upstream to take the testimony of those from whom he claims to have heard the tales.
Game on.
Eric is not a whistleblower as he doesn’t fit the statutory definition.
This coup plotter needs to be subjected to the full rigors of the adversary system.
They sound like Ukrainian agents and I wonder about a US Army officer that is so committed to another country. Everybody knows Ukraine has been mired in corruption and there does seem to be connections between Ukrainians and the 2016 election.
Frankly, Biden is probably the weakest Democrat candidate.
I just wonder where all of these "Ukraine must be helped NOW!" people in the State Dept, National Security, the Dem party, and the media were when Russia was in the act of invading Ukraine, killing their people, downing a passenger jet, and Obama was holding back from sending arms to Ukraine.
Where were all of these breathless people then? I remember I was frustrated and pissed that he wouldn't help Ukraine at that time. It was a much bigger deal. Where were all the breathless?
In a much simpler time, Andrew Jackson went to war with Spain and claimed that President Madison had authorized him to do so, which Madison absolutely denied having intended, but the language of his instructions to Jackson had been a little murky.
When Ambassador Sondland says he recalls that in September he told the Ukrainian government that it was his impression there was a quid pro quo on the aid proposal, that sounds like something that may have come from the internal workings of "Foggy Bottom" without either the President or his Secretary(ies) of State being aware of it.
Furthermore, the name has been in the press. This controversy about the whistleblower/stooge is just a silly diversion. The Dems want the drama of a notional witness protection program and the advantages of having their stooge not be cross-examined in public.
Althouse, you are making me break my intention of reading nothing about the stupid, cooked-up impeachment controversy. Let's go back to the beginning of the Republic. Did Thomas Jefferson really have concerns about Aaron Burr's ambitions in the West, or was it a personal and political vendetta?
If the anti-Trump conspirators had any doubts, they would have been careful not to express them. These are people acting in bad faith. The outrage is fake.
I don't dismiss the possibility that there is something problematic waiting to be unearthed, but at this point, the impeachment supporters don't even have reasonable suspicion. And after all the frothing they've done, I don't believe they're holding their best cards to their chest while carefully awaiting the most opportune moment.
How sad do you have to be to have Joe Biden for a hero?
Kaus is being cute. He, along with everyone in Washington and many others know the name of the "whistleblower", as well as that he is both a Ukraine "hawk" (pro Ukraine, anti-Russia) and has strong ties to Joe Biden and Democrats.
He's also believed to be the "Charlie" that Strzok and Page discussed in texts, based on the pronunciation of this last name.
They didnt care about the ukraine three years ago, when it mattered:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10218004316451553&id=1595044785&anchor_composer=false
Did any of the pro-Ukraine Trump administration conspirators express any doubts about their outrage?
Zealots aren't known for doubting their beliefs.
I am exhausted with the mental and ethical gymnastics of people trying to find some way to get this shit-show to stick the landing for the entrenched Deep State and Dems -- such as, that these players are simply misguided in passionate Pro-Ukrainian zeal, etc etc.
I get that Kaus is playing 'Good Cop' in a Good Cop / Bad Cop dynamic, but the 'Bad Cops' aren't simply 'Bad', they are corrupt and venal, in that exceptionally maddening way of those who do so on a government paycheck and know that they are not held to the laws and standards of the commoners.
We are watching Big Government show us how the sausage is made. Because there is only those on the safe side of the grinder, and those who are meat.
I am Laslo.
I don't see why the identity of the "whistleblower" is important given that the facts asserted by the "whistleblower" are not in dispute. Only the interpretation is disputed and since the "whistleblower" has no first-hand knowledge of the facts at issue, he should not even be included in that discussion. He's a nobody with nothing to contribute.
’Kaus appears to be ignoring the corrected Sondland testimony as well as any contradictory facts.’
‘Corrected testimony’ and ‘contradictory facts’ are odd ways to describe selected leaks from the Star Chamber.
We also need to know who told the Gossiper about the phone call. Remember the original report from the Gossiper that Trump told the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden SEVEN times in a short phone call. That there was a quid pro quo and he made it clear he wanted true or untrue facts.
None of the original allegations where correct. So who lied to the gossip?
Sondland, acknowledges the quid pro quo. Sondland is particularly convincing since he first tried to shade the truth to protect Trump and only when it was impossible to deny the quid pro quo did he change his story.
Wrong.
Sondland, in his own words. "presumed" the aid was predicated on Ukraine making a public statement about investigating corruption. Sondland is completely blank, on what informed his presumption.
Let us not forget that the highly decorated, unassailable, heroic, patriotic, selfless, military man, Vindman, was worried that The President of the United States was putting at risk, the inter agency group foreign policy. We know the President of the United States trying to wrest foreign policy away from the Constitutions Article IV powers, reserved for inter agency bureaucrats, is an impeachable offense
ARM--are you sure what Sondland said? I'm not. He seems to have said a lot of different things, none of them in public and subject to questioning.
You are a propagandist.
However, the point of whistleblowers is to report potential misconduct so it can be investigated because an investigation would be unlikely if handle through normal chain of command
First, normal chain of command would have prevented a person using hearsay, to lodge a complaint of any type.
Second. A Whistle Blower Complaint that involved the misconduct of the Executive Branch, concerning foreign communications, would not be filed with the Intelligence Community Inspector General. It would be filed with the State Dept Inspector General.
Explain how and why, normal chain of command was NOT followed?
Some Greek Ass said...
But none of these justifies, in my mind, setting a precedent for exposing whistleblowers.
I'd hate to think about what goes on, in Your mind; but, in The Real World
There Is NO precedent for concealing whistleblowers. Are you ignorant? Or a Liar?
Taylor says that he knew that the accusation against Biden was baseless because Biden would never do such a thing over money. Joe’s brother getting a billion dollar plus contract in Iraq to build housing there when he had zero experience notwithstanding. OK, Taylor didn’t say that part, he overlooked it, of course, like everything else. Like the millions going to Biden’s son.
He also knew that just becuase Ukraine interfered in the US election to help Hillary, Trump is being ridiculous to hold that against them, which maybe he wouldn’t have if he hadn’t spent the first three years of his presidency defending himsef against the charge that he was doing the exact thing that was done to him.
This is like Sisyphus pushing a rock constantly uphill in punishment for the crimes of another.
to review:
When Jo Biden explicitly had a quid pro quo for Ukrainian aid...
...That was Great! Something to be Bragged about! 'cause it HELPED Jo Biden!
When Trump supposedly had a quid pro quo for Ukrainian aid...
...That was EVIL! Something to be Impeached over! 'cause it HURT Jo BIden!
It's Important to realize, that the REASON for the United States, is to Help Jo Biden!
BCARM: This post is already outdated, given that Trump's own guy, Sondland, acknowledges the quid pro quo.
So Sondland is this week's great Dem hope? Last week you assured us that Vindman's testimony was going to deliver the coup de grâce.
(Politics is like tee-vee and movies - nobody caters to my taste. This soap opera scripting bores me to tears, but the general public seems to have an infinite appetite for the stuff.)
Greek Donkey: Let it be investigated. Let the actions be defended. It could turn out to be a colossal waste of time and money, In which case there will be a political price to pay.
A price? If you say so. How many more colossal wastes of time and money all arising from a refusal to accept the results of a legitimate election will Americans tolerate? Interesting question. Half the country says, "as many as it takes". The other half seems willing to keep going along with them, despite a lot of online muttering about "provoking a civil war" and the like.
They're trying to protect who leaked to the WB. That person can be prosecuted for leaking classified info. WB will have to reveal his source(s) if he testifies. Even if there wasn't a conspiracy, the Dems need to protect their leakers/operatives.
Sondland, acknowledges the quid pro quo.
The quid pro quo was not only legal, it was within the president's duties to employ it.
Calling out the Bidens on their extortion and bribery racket was the president's duty.
There is nothing suspicious or illegal in quid pro quo. Claiming that there is, is part of the cover up of the coup and the Biden's extortion and bribery rackets.
"may be sincerely, passionately inflating the importance of Trump's sin"
"Sincerely," ha. Sure, they are all sincere deep-state swamp creatures, who sincerely despise Trump and are passionately eager to take him down.
The unsurprising surprise is how many surrounded Trump, how deep the deep state goes, how difficult it is and would have been for Trump or anyone like him to clean house.
Obviously, the only right thing to do is to start sending undercover agents to "meet" Biden campaign staff, and get FISA warrants for their phone.
"... no pro quid pro; I just want Zelensky to do the right thing!" may seem clear enough to an irritated Trump, but heard as a claim for "plausible deniability" by some.
These latest "bombshells" are quite squishy and still do not support an impeachment.
"Mole" is the correct term for the individual who agreed to fabricate this latest vindictive strike from the Dems and the Deep State.
Is anybody ever going to actually investigate the obviously corrupt Biden sweetheart deal? I realize a trivial thing like actual corruption is a lot less fun than trying to take another whack at Trump, but there are perhaps a few of us deplorable rubes out here in flyover country that would like to know the terms of the deals the Biden family cut with Ukraine and China. Just idle curiosity.
"There were 17 people on the phone, including the secretary of state," Starr continued. "The president was so, shall I say, open and transparent about it that that goes to his intent. There's no corrupt bargain, or an attempt to achieve a corrupt bargain, as I see it."
from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/trump-the-phone-call-and-consciousness-of-guilt
I have trouble paying attention to all of this. It just seems all so absurd.
So what is Trump's alleged crime? He pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate an alleged crime. That's it. That's the whole thing?!!
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...This post is already outdated, given that Trump's own guy, Sondland, acknowledges the quid pro quo.
Now all Democrats need is a plausible theory as to why that's wrong and they're set.
ARM: "This post is already outdated, given that Trump's own guy, Sondland, acknowledges the quid pro quo."
LOLOLOLOLOL
Such a sad and pathetic lie.
Again.
Sondland's testimony is that he has no knowledge of a quid pro quo, has no evidence of a quid pro quo, was never given an indication of a quid pro quo, was told directly that it was not a quid pro quo, but just assumed there was one anyway!!
Literally!
ARM has decided to go Full Kavanaugh Gang Rapist / Covington Catholic High Schoolers Are Racist Liar Mode right off the bat!
Just another day in Dem "Insurance Policy" Land.
Ralph L said...
How sad do you have to be to have Joe Biden for a hero?
11/6/19, 6:35 AM
I have to admit, I like they guy. He’s starting to grow on me. I think it would be really funny if he were elected president. Like comedy of the highest order. Probably would be a disaster for our country, of course, but I’m starting to feel that the disaster would be worth it just for the laughs. I’m strongly considering voting for him should he get the nomination.
I love me some Mickey Kaus. I voted for him for Governor years ago. I would stick up for him in that he often writes in a sort of stream of consciousness, pro and con style that could be seen as "dithering". He is the only sane liberal writer I can think of off the top of my head. But its clear he has his doubts about this whole squirrely deal of having a deep stater as a witness and the inherent phoniness of hiding his identity. He likes positing theories that may do a better job explaining something (but this ain't it)
Blogger Greek Donkey said...
“Not sure that I agree. Yes, there can be bad faith whistleblowers, and I assume that protection would disappear for any such person. Under some statutes, I believe that they can be prosecuted. However, the point of whistleblowers is to report potential misconduct so it can be investigated because an investigation would be unlikely if handle through normal chain of command, Let it be investigated. Let the actions be defended. It could turn out to be a colossal waste of time and money, In which case there will be a political price to pay. But none of these justifies, in my mind, setting a precedent for exposing whistleblowers.”
You ignore that there is no evidence as of yet that the WB did not act in bad faith. Coordinating with Schifty and his HSCI staff before filing, then almost assuredly filing something as a WB complaint that others (presumably that HSCI staff) had at least edited, if not written outright, is definitely bad faith. Filing with the ICIG was bad faith because this had nothing to do with the IC, except to get the complaint to Schifty’s HSCI. It didn’t involve intelligence, but rather foreign relations, and if it was going to a House committee, that is where he should have taken it.
One of the big reasons to know the identity of the WB is to know his contacts and loyalties. If Eric is indeed the WB, he has known close ties to both Biden and esp Brennan. Brennan, as USA Durham appears to be closing in on his part in SpyGate, appears unrepentant, and almost seems to have been gloating in regards to UkraineGate. Is this whole thing, as he seems to be suggesting, in his gloating, just another CIA operation against Trump? My view is that only a leftist partisan hack wouldn’t be worried about the CIA running operations against the sitting President, from whom they derive the entirety of their legal, moral, and Constitutional legitimacy.
A Timeline Of Joe Biden's Intervention Against The Prosecutor General Of Ukraine, published yesterday by the Moon of Alabama website.
In previous articles, that website has been arguing that:
1) Burisma was owned by Mykola Zlochevsky
2) Ukrainian General-Prosecutor Viktor Shokin was investigating Zlochevsky for corruption
3) Shokin began to seize some Zlochevsky properties on February 2, 2016
4) Joe Biden compelled Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin on February 12, 2016.
-------
I have been studying the timeline.
My understanding is that Shokin was being pressured -- mostly by the USA -- to prosecute corruption more effectively.
In response to such pressure, Shokin initiated an investigation of 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.
Shokin's seizure of Zlochevsky's property on February 2 upset the Bidens.
Shokin's seizure of Zlochevsky's property was announced publicly on 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 used Twitter to communicate to Hunter Biden by code.)
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.
-------
Part of Joe Biden's story is that he was waiting for an airplane to depart in six hours and that Poroshenko had to fire Shokin before the airplane departed -- or else Biden would stop Ukraine from receiving $1 billion from US taxpayers.
If Biden was not in Ukraine on February 12, however, then the airplane-departure element in Biden's story is dubious.
* Perhaps the airplane-element element is a Biden conflation.
* Perhaps Biden was in Washington DC (or elsewhere) waiting for an airplane departure.
-------
The known timeline does not include any events indicating any international dissatisfaction with Shokin.
Instead, it seems that Shokin committed his big sin on February 2, 2019, when he seized some of Zlochevsky's property while NABU was supposed to be managing the Zlochevsky's case.
Just ten days later, on February 12, Joe Biden compelled the Ukrainian President to fire Prosecutor Shoken.
When did it happen that an international coalition formed to demand the firing of Shokin?
The US State Department should provide the documents that some such international coalition ever did form. It seems to me that the US State Department is complicit in the Bidens' corruption in Ukraine.
That is why President Trump had to use Rudy Giuliani -- to get around the State Department's complicity in Vice President Biden's corrupt actions in Ukraine.
The bureaucrats in our federal government are a bunch of conniving sneaks and weasels. Perhaps there are some who are not political partisans, but it seems from everything that I've read that most of them are. The Augean Stables of Washington need a river diverted through them to flush them out.
This is like the Stormy Daniels scandal, but without the prurient interest. I like discussing whether it's a more serious offense to have a bj in Oval Office and then lie about it or whether it's a more heinous offense to have sex with a porn star and then request that she lie about it. A topic like this is inherently fascinating and can be discussed endlessly without any loss of interest on my part. And the American commonweal is stronger because of it.... All this discussion of the various shades of corruption and complicity in Biden vs Trump's dealings with the Ukraine is extremely tedious.
My guess is that the Ukrainians used some hot looking agent to influence somebody's decisions and until that woman comes forward and testifies, I'm not going to be paying much attention......I always thought that high crimes referred to crimes committed while high. It seems to me that Hunter Biden, given his record of drug abuse, was far more likely to have committed a high crime than the teetotaler Trump.
Legal: Joe Biden setting up his son to make millions in an industry he knows nothing about.
Legal: Joe Biden's quid pro Quo - on tape. A threat to withhold millions in tax payer dollars in aid until the guy looking at Barisma corruption is fired. It just so happens Hunter Biden is making 50,000/month from Barisma.
Yeah - that is what smells.
But it's illegal to ask the Ukrainian government for help fighting this corruption.
wow.
Consortium News recently published an article titled DC’s Atlantic Council Raked in Funding from Hunter Biden’s Corruption-Stained Ukrainian Employer While Courting His VP Father, written by Max Blumenthal.
Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that hired Hunter Biden, has been donating up to $250,000 a year to The Atlantic Council.
The Atlantic Council is a think tank that hosts conferences and publishes materials that criticize the Russian Government. Joe Biden has appeared as "a star speaker" at several award ceremonies that the Atlantic Council has hosted.
In various speeches, Joe Biden often has advocated that Europe develop non-Russia suppliers of natural gas -- for example, Ukraine.
The Atlantic Council advocates that Ukraine by supplied with weapons from NATO countries.
In addition to serving on Burisma's Board of Directors, Hunter Biden served on the Board of Directors of The National Democratic Institute, "a U.S.-funded “democracy promotion” organization that was heavily involved in pushing regime change [overthrowing the elected President Yanukovich] in Ukraine."
Here's a key passage in the article.
[quote]
On Jan. 19, 2017 — just two days after the investigation of Zlochevsky ended — Burisma announced a major “cooperative agreement” with the Atlantic Council. “It became possible to sign a cooperative agreement between Burisma and the Atlantic Council after all charges against Burisma Group companies and its owner [Mykola] Zlochevskyi were withdrawn,” the Kyiv Post reported at the time.
The deal was inked by the director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia program, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine named John Herbst.
Since then, Burisma helped bankroll Atlantic Council programming, including an energy security conference held this May in Monaco, where Zlochevsky currently lives. ...
At one such conference in Monaco, then-Burisma board member Hunter Biden declared, “One of the reasons that I am proud to be a member of the board at Burisma is that I believe we are trying to figure out the way to create a radical change in the way we look at energy.”
[end quote]
One of the Atlantic Council's purposes is to serve as a slush-fund to distribute money to people like Joe Biden and John Herbst. Acting on Burisma's Board of Directors, Hunter Biden donates the company's money to the Atlantic Council, which then hosts conferences at which Hunter's father is paid to speak.
“I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland recalled.
Why is that illegal?
How is it illegal?
How is any of that wrong or illegal standing next to what Biden did, and admitted doing himself, - ON VIDEO?
Was it just unsavory
Why does Kaus posit "unsavory" as the best interpretation? Why not "perfectly correct"? The poor guy is wandering in the Democratic la-la plantation. Someone call Harriet Tubman.
That turble Trump is demanding a change in the old system that Ukraine patriots loved so much. So what the Ukrainian Patriots had to send a third of the free American cash back to Dems and RINOs, well laundered. They got to keep the rest. But under Trump no one gets any loot.
And the Deep State wept.
For some of us the obvious false flag nature of Ukrainian interference and the ICs hands all over it scream for subway accidents,heart attacks, and drunken calls for the sheer incompetence of what they expect people to belIeve.Parameters are supposed to be a lot smarter than Obama's dunces.Including his holdovers.
This is fun: Report: Leaker Adam Schiff Threatens Ethics Complaint Against Staffer Who Leaked Name of Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
Adam Schiff is famous for leaking classified information to the liberal media.
In fact Schiff has allegedly leaked classified information from a committee hearing while the hearing was still ongoing!
...
According to reporter Paul Sperry Rep. Adam Schiff is threatening an ethics complaint against the staffer who leaked the name of whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to the press.
It sounds like Schifty Schiff just confirmed that Ciaramella is the whistleblower, huh?
Byron York agrees with me. Taylor was remarkably ignorant of Ukrainian corruption. He took Joe’s “word as a Biden” that his family could take all of that graft and not be affected. He also completely discounts the need to keep that Hunter Biden story out of the news during an election year, just like the Epstein coverup happened just about then.
Democrats sure do a lot of “curating” of the news.
Perhaps I misheard the report last night that Sondland had amended his testimony to the effect that he believed there was a quid pro quo. That is insufficient to establish it as a fact, especially when compared to the transcript of the call.
On topic.
A "whistleblower" is a concerned citizen "blowing the whistle" on some skullduggery from his own sense of moral outrage, while this guy obviously is a "deep state" operative with a complaint scripted by others, aided and coached by Schiff's committee, and consists largely of a political charge phrased in legal terminology to make it appear legitimate.
We don’t need to hear from the whistleblower because we have the transcript.
We certainly don't need the WB, supposedly Eric Ciaramella, to answer any of these Kaus inquiries. We need to know to judge the WBs ties to Trump's political opposition and his political proclivities since he was characterized as being politically motivated.
Don't see how MK's various scenarios relate to naming the whistleblower. Every instance of whistleblowing could end up a dud. Do you or don't you want to encourage whistleblowers to come forward? The ranting against this one proves the wisdom of the statutory protections.
Ukraine is poor in petroleum fields, but does have one region with great potential for fracking natural gas. That one region is the Donbass, especially around the city of Slavyansk. This region is populated mostly by ethnic Russians. After President Yanukovych was expelled in late February 2014, the secession uprising in Donbass began primarily in Slavyansk.
In April 2014 -- a couple months after President Yanukovych was expelled -- the Burisma natural-gas company hired Hunter Biden onto its Board of Directors. Burisma is a Ukrainian natural-gas company that might be able to frack natural gas in this rebellious, ethnic-Russian region.
If Donbass does secede from Ukraine, however, then Ukraine will be deprived of that potential fracking field and will remain a petroleum-poor country.
If Ukraine does manage to keep Donbass and to frack the fields there, then Ukraine -- in particular, Burisma -- might enjoy a bonanza.
By placing his son Hunter onto Burisma's Board of Directors, Joe Biden enriched his son and also made him a valuable source of information about the problems and developments in fracking the natural-gas field in Donbass.
My source for this comment
If the Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot so often they'll surely lock up the podiatrist vote.
MSM covers for Epstein and ALL corrupt democrats.
democraps win at election time. MSM-zucker-Maddow-Schitt lies are effective.
There are two options at this point:
1. Acknowledge the quid pro quo but argue that it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. This seems to be the strategy that most Repub senators will take.
2. Put ones fingers in ones ears and go "la la la". This is known as the Graham strategy.
I rarely make predictions, but I predict that Graham turns on Trump like a rabid dog once Graham is safely re-elected.
President Trump is the Ukraine hawk in the room as he extended them military aid -as soon as got a chance- which is something Obama/Biden never did in 8 years.
What "demand" did Trump make? It seemed he made a request, asked a favor.
Anyway, every negotiation involves quid pro quo, or there's no negotiation, and it isn't a crime unless it violates the law (DUH!). It's particularly ridiculous of the Dems to pick on a part of the phone call that WASN'T QPQ.
The interesting thing is that the h is pronounced before the w in whistle. Anybody who learned Gregg shorthand knew that already.
It is highly disconcerting to me that we have to put up with this whole charade. Anyone who’s honest knows this entire impeachment “inquiry” is just the latest attempt to smear and destroy Trump, That’s the “there” there and there is no other there there. Sadly, it works to some degree. Average people grow exhausted by the onslaught and ultimately conclude Trump needs to go.
I taught “Othello” a few times way back in the day. Nothing reminds me of today’s Democrat/media cabal more than Iago, the most diabolical villain Shakespeare ever came up with. In the end Iago is outed but not before destroying everyone else around him. Trump in lambasting the media as purveyors of “fake news” is doing God’s work in trying to enlighten the public of their Iagoian nature but, sadly, it seems they can never be defeated. Othello dies but Iago is merely told he will be tortured.
I keep hoping Trump will outmuscle Iago but I’m growing despondent.
Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
So Sondland is this week's great Dem hope?
I think it has been pretty clear since Taylor's statement was released what happened here. The rest has been just supporting evidence.
I don't think the Dems should have started this impeachment process. They should have had an enquiry however. Trump seems to think he can run government like he ran his crappy company - entirely for his own benefit. There has to be some limits placed on this.
Why is Mickey saying "Whistle Blower" we know who it is. Just say the name, Mickey. Just say it:
Eric Ciaramella
You're Goddamn Right.
This whole thing was a conspiracy from the word go. And i want the CIA IG to get fired. He's the one who conveniently changed the W-B form to allow 2nd hand hearsay. He's also the one who went directly to Congress, because the W-B was so "credible". We now know, he was NOT credible at ALL.
Of course, Trump is to blame too. Why did he keep that liberal Never-trumper as Ambassador to Ukraine? How did he miss that Lt. Col vineman was a plant? Doesn't he realize he's surrounded by spies and enemies?
Sondland says Trump pressured Ukraine to make a "public anti-corruption statement", a statement which would go against everything the Democrat Party stands for.
And I agree Eric C is NOT a whistle-blower. What is he blowing the whistle on? He's working outside the NSC since 2017. He only got told stuff by Lt Col vinemann who is a leaker, and should be prosecuted.
There was an obvious quid pro quo with Biden threatening to withhold money unless the Ukrainian prosecutor was fired. It is on video in Biden's own words. Furthermore, it is a corrupt quid pro quo because Biden's interests are obviously venal.
There is a in Trump's dealings with the Ukrainians. That speculation is not born out in the official transcript. In addition, Trump's interests are in uncovering graft. It does not matter that Biden is a potential foe.
If we had a media that was not the PR firm and propaganda arm of the Democrats party, this obvious set of distinctions would be pointed put endlessly.
Unfortunately, many Democrats only pay attention to the media and have no understanding of how corrupt this situation is.
Just as everyone in the media and Washington (and across America) knew that Richard Armitage was the one who outed Valerie Plame, but kept on beating the drum of Scooter Libby, Scooter Libby and gave Patrick Fitzgerald the open door to keep ruining other peoples lives, so today, do we see the same thing.
EVERYONE knows who the 'whistleblower' is. Everyone. Even I do. We know his background. Who he worked with. Who he met with prior to becoming The Whistleblower. Who he hates (Trump?). And why this has been played out like it has.
And as the suddenly mealy-mouthed media wander around that elephant in the room, they keep up the charade, as they did then, and continue to do with Valerie Plame. Why do we hate and distrust the media? How could we not? They continue to make themselves the least trusted profession in the country. People would rather visit their dentists than listen to CNN.
readering: " Do you or don't you want to encourage whistleblowers to come forward?"
LOLOLOL
The obama administration set a record for prosecuting actual whistleblowers.
Actual whistleblowers.
This Eric Ciaramella does not qualify in any way as an actual "whistleblower" per the actual Whistleblower Statute.
Further, he is just a Brennan/Biden/Obama plant already kicked out of the White House for illegal leaks for which the DOJ obama holdover deep staters (who hadn't been replaced yet) let walk.
Ciaramella is also neck deep with Victoria Nuland in dissemination of the hoax dossier paid for by Hillary and obtained by having foreign agents working directly with russians to create a hoax narrative.
He will be formally "outed" and he will have to answer questions publicly.
Democracy Dies In Darkness, remember?
stevew: "Perhaps I misheard the report last night that Sondland had amended his testimony to the effect that he believed there was a quid pro quo."
His testimony was precisely that there is no evidence for a quid pro quo (which is not illegal in any event particularly when investigating potential corruption and criminal activity of the dems in 2016) and that he (Sondland) simply assumed there was a quid pro quo without any evidence of it.
That's it.
Literally.
Trump isn’t getting removed over Biden’s Cokehead Son getting millions of dollars from Ukraine.
It will be fun to watch Trump’s lawyers grill Cokehead Son in The Senate Trial while The Eunuch John Roberts presides.
The State Department personnel on the emails who knew about Cokehead Son will have to testify. John Kerry, who met with Cokehead Son’s Partner about Burisma will have to testify.
I doubt Trump gets impeached. The Dems don’t want The Trial. Neither does Biden.
Laslo: I get that Kaus is playing 'Good Cop' in a Good Cop / Bad Cop dynamic, but the 'Bad Cops' aren't simply 'Bad', they are corrupt and venal, in that exceptionally maddening way of those who do so on a government paycheck and know that they are not held to the laws and standards of the commoners.
I get what the people stroking their chins about this are doing, I just don't get why they're doing it. What is the point of soberly analyzing a farce?
Is it possible that the sober analyzers don't get that they're watching a straight-up farce? Maybe they're just lost in the game (pundits gotta punditize)? Or am *I* the one not getting the joke here? Because I'm not seeing any other rational response but Basta! to this serialized clown show.
But none of these justifies, in my mind, setting a precedent for exposing whistleblowers.
The statutes provide no protection of whistleblowers from exposure - they merely prohibit job-related retaliatory action from being taken against a whistleblower.
It's interesting how the prevailing language ebbs and flows with political expediency.
"Linkage", good. Quid pro quo, bad.
Linkage: the tactic in diplomatic negotiations of linking often unrelated issues so that progress in one area is dependent on agreement in another.
Maybe Sondland's memory was jogged by the treatment he has been receiving in his hometown of Portland, Oregon, where the squishy mayor has returned Sondland campaign contribution(s), and where Sondland was accosted this week at the airport baggage carousel by noisy activists who somehow knew when he was arriving in town and came out to badger him.
Portland has become a place where dissident views are not encouraged and, sometimes, are prosecuted with relish. I still have friends there of various political outlooks who don't get their skirts blown up over politics. But the public tenor of the city has shifted toward a sort of all-must-obey mindset that can be trifle offputting at times.
@ARM
The third, unmentioned, option is that Trump did the right thing in calling out the Bidens’ bribery and extortion rackets.
This is the correct answer.
Your two options are a BS coverup of the bribery and extortion rackets, and an attempt to turn reality on its head. You are, as usual, lying.
Trump’s actions were legal, ethical and required by his oath of office.
Stop trying to find an excuse for the Bidens’ rackets.
It would be nice if the Trumpists' vendetta against Ukraine prompted Bolton to tell what he knows.
"Trump seems to think he can run government like he ran his crappy company - entirely for his own benefit. There has to be some limits placed on this.” - ARM
Yes, foreign election inteference on behalf of Democrats as happened in 2016 out of Ukraine must continue and Joe Biden’s brother getting a billion dollar plus contract for construction in Iraq, when he had no experience in that business should raise no eyebrows. No looking into Democrat malfeasance should ever be tolerated.
Has anybody else noticed that all of these allegations against Trump only make sense if you start out with the assumption that he is guilty, because there is nothing anybody could call proof of his guilt in any of it.
“Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth!” - ARM’s guiding principle.
readering: "It would be nice if the Trumpists' vendetta against Ukraine prompted Bolton to tell what he knows."
LOL
"Trumpist vendetta against Ukraine" = Discovering the extent of democrat corruption and money laundering in Ukraine as well as Democrat directed Ukrainian interference in 2016 election on behalf of the dems!!
I doubt Trump gets impeached. The Dems don’t want The Trial. Neither does Biden.
Yes. The Schiff hearing is chaff to distract the incoming missiles of the Horowitz and Durham reports.
The Dems and their Media allies are increasingly desperate, as intelligent observers from the high and left understand.
taylor was ambassador from 2006-9, he knows about Ukrainian corruption, it's striking that moon of alabama, and sid's spawn (who has terrible judgement issues) is fairly on point, now you add the lobbying of naftogaz, and you see why they didn't want any competition,
in other news, there has a power sharing deal, in yemen, fwiw,
Do we know whether Trump ever ask DOJ to investigate the Bidens? If not, why not. If yes, when was the request, was there an investigation (if not, why not) and what was the outcome of any said investigation ?
Not enough attention is being paid to the fact that Giuliani represented trump during his shadow diplomacy. Trump can have whoever he wants do diplomacy outside official channels. However, if that person is his personal lawyer, that means that the shadow diplomacy was done on behalf of trump the individual as opposed to the USA.
I don't if there will be a horowitz report. it's those things that are spoken about,
Not enough attention is being paid to the fact that Giuliani represented trump during his shadow diplomacy. Trump can have whoever he wants do diplomacy outside official channels. However, if that person is his personal lawyer, that means that the shadow diplomacy was done on behalf of trump the individual as opposed to the USA.
steve,
If a POTUS uses a trusted friend for diplomacy, is it aways because it is on his personal (rather than the country's) behalf?
It is a simple question of logic which you seem to struggle with.
We have the letter dated in 2016 on Senate letterhead, asking Ukraine to look for dirt on the Trump Campaign and the campaigns staff. The requested cooperation was going to be a factor in Senate approved aide to Ukraine in the future. Ukraine responded with Black Ledgers, outlining business done there by Paul Manafort. Don't need any witnesses. Just an ethics ruling by the Senate. If Republicans would play the game by the rules dictated by the Democrats, McConnell would have put this in the Senate docket. If he had, this whole thing would have died a death of neglect and starvation.
It's amazing, isn't it, how our leftists here seem to think that it is clearly impeachable, treason, etc to investigate Democrat party corruption.
They don't seem to care one whit that Biden is on the take, and using his office to set US policy according to how much money his son gets paid.
Does ARM care? Rendering? Sunsong? Steve Uhr? Do they honestly not care one whit that Biden is corrupt to the core? Do they honestly think that investigating Biden is an impeachable offense? That asking another country to be against corruption is a bad thing?
Look, think about this: Our democrats and leftists in this thread are screaming that it is immoral and ethically wrong and impeachable for Trump to ask for a corruption investigation. That he is doing it for his own political gain.
I.E. being anti-corruption is going to be a huge political gain for Trump because, I guess, Democrats cannot be anti-corruption? Isn't that what the leftists here are saying--Trump is seizing the opportunity to score political points against corrupt Democrats who cannot credibly be anti-corrupt?
Because that would be the answer, right? "Hey, Trump's got a winning issue on running against political corruption! Let's join in, take away his winning issue and score some anti-corrupt points ourselves!"
Nope, instead it's "Impeach anyone who dares to investigate billions in bribes!"
Oh yes: as to the "Why Guliani and not the state department?" As we've seen, the State Department and the DOJ are filled to the brim with Democrats who have an open agenda of letting Democrats get away with murder. Heck, as with Epstein maybe even committing murder.
I think the trolls here have gotten the word from the DNC: it's about Trump's personal gain.
Pay no attention to Biden selling out for his son's financial gain.
You people are pitiful and desperate.
What jumped to mind as I read was the epidemic of college women having consensual sex, but after talking it over with man-hating friends or counselors became convinced they had been raped. (Not denying that nasty rapes happen.)
’However, if that person is his personal lawyer, that means that the shadow diplomacy was done on behalf of trump the individual as opposed to the USA.’
It proves no such thing. Perhaps it shows that Rudy is the person he most trusted in this instance on behalf of our country.
It would be nice if the Trumpists' vendetta against Ukraine prompted Bolton to tell what he knows.
It would be nice if the previous Ukraine administrations vendetta against Trump and intercession in US politics on behalf of Hillary were covered too. It would have been nice if ABC news had seen fit to cover the Epstien story, but it apparently involves Disney executives and Clinton during an election. It would be nice if Ukraine had been allowed to continue their prosection of Burisman and brought Biden in as a witness as planned, but “son of a bitch” that didn’t happen. That would also have been during the US election.
Lot’s of stuff would be nice. The more that comes to light the better. But as with Epstein, this story will be carefully “curated” to show Democrats in the best possible light and the Republicans, the worst. And readering will pretend not to see it. Democrats are a cult.
arlier this year, I broke down Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s allegation that Biden forced Kiev to fire a corrupt prosecutor in order to protect his son Hunter. (As I and nearly every other Ukraine watcher pointed out, Giuliani’s claim is meritless.) But Ukraine did play a significant factor in the 2016 election: the exposure of Paul Manafort’s corruption.
Of course, Manafort, who is currently serving time in prison, is legendarily corrupt. But the larger question is how to handle the fact that, in helping to expose his corruption, Ukrainian entities shaped the course of an American election.
Ha ha ha! “meritless”! No way that Biden could have been motivated by mere millions of dollars, or by the imperative of keeping the Democrats out of the news from Ukraine during an election year! It’s rediculous to think so! All the people slurping at the trough of Ukrainian graft say so!
Pay no attention to Biden selling out for his son's financial gain.
This was February of an election year when he took action to keep his son’s name out of the news in an investigation of corruption. That order to clean up the Hoover Biden mess may well have came from Obama, or even higher, the DNC.
Oh yeah, and pay no attention to the fact that at the time of the DNC hack, the Democrats were in the middle of the whole Pakistani computer expert cum foreign spy and blackmailer.
Am I Rendering? (I hate autocorrect too.) I am on record hopeful Biden drops out ASAP for this or any other reason. But Ukraine is at war and Trump is on the side of the Russians and does not give a about corruption in Ukraine or elsewhere. He's just a "get me the emails" guy.
"Not enough attention is being paid to the fact that Giuliani represented trump during his shadow diplomacy. Trump can have whoever he wants do diplomacy outside official channels. :
Hillary can hire Fusion GPS to go snooping around and manufacturing fake dirt on Trump at any time though!
steve uhr at 11:11 AM
Trump can have whoever he wants do diplomacy outside official channels. However, if that person is his personal lawyer, that means that the shadow diplomacy was done on behalf of trump the individual as opposed to the USA.
Exactly when and how did Giuliani work as Trump's personal lawyer?
steve uhr said...
Do we know whether Trump ever ask DOJ to investigate the Bidens?
Poor Steve. Are you really that vexatious litigant ? DOJ is investigating the Biden story NOW ! It is part of the Russia hoax.
readering (rendering us stupid?),
"But Ukraine is at war and Trump is on the side of the Russians"
Exactly; that's why the current administration has approved more arms sales to Ukraine than the previous, Russia-hating and -fearing administration.
"But Ukraine is at war and Trump is on the side of the Russians”
Not a fucking iota, or even a scintilla, not even a smidgen of proof here, and yet it is ow an article of faith among Democrats. How do you think Putin likes the gradual defunding of his army by fracking and completing Keystone to suppress oil prices, readering? There was an act of war against Saudi production and the price barely moved. That had to be a kick in the nuts to Putin, wouldn’t you say?
It’s kind of telling really, that there is no proof that Trump is guilty unless you assume he is at the start.
Is it that easy to ignore the fact that Ukraine interfered on behalf of HIllary, readering? Is it because Glenn Greenwald is such a right wing troll? Or The Nation is a right wing rag? Or the New York Times is untrustworthy due to right wing bias?
Here’s an honest question, readering. Do you really think your Baghdad Bob approach of ignoring that your argument has been shredded and repeating it over and over as if it hadn’t is effective?
Or do you have counterarguments to all the stuff we say, that you are keeping to yourself?
readering at 12:01 PM
Ukraine is at war and Trump is on the side of the Russians
In Ukraine's 2010 Presidential election, Viktor Yanukovych won by forming a political coalition that included 1) Ukraine's ethnic Russians and 2) Ukraine's ethnic Ukrainians who favored a more cooperative relationship with Russia.
The European Union sent election observers, who declared that Yanukovych had won the election fairly.
After Yanukovych became President, ethnic-Ukrainian zealots, especially in the capital city of Kyiv, opposed the peaceful transfer of power. They demonstrated in the streets continuously and generally caused trouble. This resistance to the election of Yanukovych in Ukraine is similar to the Democrats' resistance to the election of Donald Trump in the USA.
The Obama Administration supported and advised the ethnic-Ukrainian zealots in their efforts to remove Yanukovych as the elected President.
Eventually, Yanukovych was compelled to flee from Ukraine, abandoning his position as the elected President on February 21, 2014.
As a consequence of the expulsion of the elected President Yanukovych, the Ukrainian regions populated predominantly by ethnic Russians -- who had voted for Yanukovych -- decided correctly that their votes in Ukraine no longer counted and never would count.
Therefore, those ethnic Russians took action to secede from Ukraine.
In particular, Crimea conducted a referendum on March 16, 2014. About 97% of the voters voted to secede from Ukraine -- where their recent votes for the President did not count -- and to join Russia -- where their future votes might count.
Because of this referendum, Crimea was able to secede from Ukraine peacefully.
However, Donbass, another Russian-population region, has not been allowed to conduct a referendum and to likewise secede peacefully. In a referendum, the Donbass electorate would vote overwhelmingly to secede.
Since the ethnic-Russians in Donbass have not been allowed to secede peacefully, many of them have been trying to secede by armed rebellion. This is a civil war within the population of Donbass. The overwhelming majority of the ethnic-Russians fighting to secede from Ukraine are ethnic Russians who have lived there all their lives.
This is not essentially an invasion from the country of Russia into the country of Ukraine.
This conflict is not the USA's business. We never should have involved ourselves in it.
Skylark,
"Or do you have counterarguments to all the stuff we say, that you are keeping to yourself?"
Dude, you owe me a new keyboard!!!
Remember when Obama withheld weapons and all the UBER HAWKS blew their whistles simultaneously?
Trump asked Zelensky to share any information that Ukraine learned about US govt - including the previous VP - activities in Ukraine. Anything Biden did in his official capacity as VPOTUS is a matter of public interest and fair game. As head of the executive branch, Trump has reason to want to know what the US govt did, or is doing, in its relations with Ukraine. There's nothing unusual about asking a foreign govt to share information. We have all sorts of sharing agreements with foreign govts; everything from intelligence, to extradition, to military exercises, to trade, to visas.
Biden demanded that Ukraine stop an investigation and had an obvious conflict of interest in making that demand. That is arguably a "high crime" that would warrant his removal from office if he were still VP. Yet none of the people demanding Trump's removal from office are demanding that Joe end his campaign. Curious that.
The House refuses to give Trump $3 billion to build a wall along our southern border.
Supposedly, that $3 billion would be a waste of money.
On the other hand, the House is making a big deal about a possible delay in giving $1 billion to Ukraine. Most of that $1 billion will be used to suppress an armed rebellion in Donbass, where the mostly Russian population is not allowed to conduct a referendum to vote to secede from Ukraine peacefully.
That Russian population wants to secede because their votes in Ukrainian Presidential elections do not count. If they vote for a pro-Russia candidate who wins the election, then that elected President eventually will be chased out of the country by Ukrainian zealots in the capital city of Kyiv.
The USA should have spent that $1 billion as part of our own $3 billion construction project for our border wall.
Mike Sylvester points out:
"In response to such pressure, Shokin initiated an investigation of 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."
I have a pet theory about this. Shokin, no doubt, is as corrupt as any Ukrainian apparatchik, and when he was getting pressured by the Obama Administration to prosecute corruption, Shokin decided to poke Obama and Biden in the eye by targeting Burisma and its owner. In other words, Shokin knew Burisma was paying Hunter Biden at least $600,000/year, and that is why Shokin targeted Burisma specifically. Of course, suddenly Shokin is a problem that was eliminated, and Burisma suddenly isn't being targeted.
You know what's depressing? As clueless and dishonest as our resident leftists are on this subject? There are millions and millions of others out there who are even worse.
What cannot continue won't.
ARM,
From the leaked testimony, Sondland didn't change his testimony- he clarified a portion of it. As with all the other testimony, all Sondland had was his opinion on what the policy was, but no actual evidence that his opinion was even correct. As Sondland still asserts, the Ukrainians weren't aware of any conditions on the aid until September when they were informed of these opinions, not facts. Since Schiff didn't deign to include it, the Republicans leaked the key part- that Sondland had no idea whether or not his opinion was accurate, and still doesn't. Zero added to zero is still zero.
You People are missing the point all across the spectrum :
Do not accept the insistent claim that QUID PRO QUO is bad - it is the meme that will destroy free and civil society -
QUID PRO QUO - is foundational for society of contract >>>
QUID PRO QUO (value for value - the trader principle) and
rule of law (consent to be governed under due process to end result in Justice)
The US guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes. That is why we should be absolutely supporting Ukraine in their fight with Russia, up to and including nuking Russia to get them to stop invading that country
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
The European Union sent election observers, who declared that Yanukovych had won the election fairly.
Is that like when Jimmy Carter goes to "observe elections", and "decides that the leftist won fairly", because, after all, it's entirely fair for leftists to stuff ballot boxes?
Yanukovych was a Putin toady. That makes him worthless scum.
"Ukrainian regions populated predominantly by ethnic Russians"
Which is to say, the parts that were invaded by Russians while Ukraine was ruled from Russia.
Screw them. They want to be under Putin? Fine, sell their property (which, almost assuredly, their recent ancestors got as stolen property from the Ukrainians dispossessed / murdered by the Russian gov't), leave Ukraine, and move back to Russia.
No, you don't get to legitimately take parts of Ukraine back to your s-hole country.
The Obama Administration encouraged the actual Ukrainians to resist the Russians, then screwed them over, refusing to offer any support when Putin invaded.
No one who wants to increase Putin's power has any legitimacy
Ever
Russian separatists who want to screw over their neighbors and put them under Putins control are all, without exception, worthless scum who should be crushed and destroyed
readering: "But Ukraine is at war and Trump is on the side of the Russians"
LOL
Obama REFUSED to provide needed weapons to Ukrain when Putin had his minions crank up ops there.
Obama sent MRE's, medical supplies and blankets.
More of that obama / Putin lovey-dovey "flexibility".
Trump immediately provided offensive weapons to Ukrain against Putins wishes.....
....and all the little marxists like readering bleat "Trump Russia Collusion" over and over again as directed by their puppet masters.
Trump also gave advanced weapon systems to Poland that Obama had refused because Putin opposed it.
Trump had to enforce obambi's Red Line in Syria, against Putins wishes, because obambi was too weak.
Trump demanded increases in NATO spending and got them, against Putin's wishes.
Trump opposed the Putin-Merkel Nordstream pipeline which puts Germany under Putins thumb. Obama did not.
Trump accelerated fracking and Oil and gas exploration turning the US into a net exporter of energy, hitting Putin in the pocketbook.
Trump yanked American troops out of the muddle of the Syria/Russia/Iran/Turkey/Kurdish areas but is retaining US presence and oversight of the oilfields, which really pisses Putin off. Putin thought Russia would control that oil...and they will...if a democrat is elected President again.
So many many other ways Trump is putting Russia's balls in a vise and readering bleats on.
I see Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out the name of the whistleblower in linking to an article about Ciaramella from Breitbart News. Trump Jr. was immediately attacked by CNN reporters for outing the whistleblower. Seriously, do they require maximum IQ of 85 to work for CNN, or are all these people just liars?
Yancey Ward at 1:28 PM
when he was getting pressured by the Obama Administration to prosecute corruption, Shokin decided to poke Obama and Biden in the eye by targeting Burisma and its owner. In other words, Shokin knew Burisma was paying Hunter Biden at least $600,000/year, and that is why Shokin targeted Burisma specifically.
I too have thought along those lines.
Shokin responded to the Obama Administration's pressure deviously by targeting the Obama Administration's own corrupt darlings -- the Burisma company and its secret owner Zlochevsky.
Fortuitously for Shokin, the British Government had re-opened its own investigation of Zlochevsky. Shokin merrily joined that investigation.
The the Obama Administration pressured Shokin to transfer the Zlochevsky case to NABU, which was essentially a creature of the Obama Administration. Shokin agreed to the transfer of this case, figuring he already had made his point sufficiently.
Shokin expected that now the Zlochevsky case would be smothered gradually by NABU.
Then on February 2, however, Shokin seized some of Zlochevsky's property -- an act that caused Shokin's own downfall ten days later -- at the hands of Joe Biden.
Why did Shokin seize Zlochevsky's property on February 2? What was going on?
Greg the class traitor at 1:58 PM
The US guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.
The problem is that Ukrainian regions that are populated overwhelmingly by ethnic-Russians want to secede from Ukraine and to join Russia.
These ethnic-Russians decided to do so after the elected President Viktor Yanukovych -- elected fairly according to the European Union's election observers -- was compelled to flee from Ukraine by Ukrainian zealots in the capital Kyiv.
The Obama Administration was not a mere observer of this situation. Rather, the Obama Administration was supporting and guiding those Ukrainian zealots in Kyiv. Instead of doing that, the Obama Administration could have advocated that the Ukrainian zealots in Kyiv accept the election of Yanukovych and work politically to defeat him in the next Presidential election.
The situation was somewhat similar to the current situation in the USA, where the Democrats are trying to remove the elected President Trump from office by means of continual trouble-making before the next election.
The Obama Administration's meddling in Ukrainian elections blew up in the Obama Administration's face. The Obama Administration did not foresee that Crimea would vote to secede and that Donbass would rebel violently in an effort to secede from Ukraine.
That's why the Obama Administration became so angry at Russia, which profited from the Obama Administration's own meddling in Ukraine.
Greg the class traitor at 1:58 PM
The Obama Administration encouraged the actual Ukrainians to resist the Russians, then screwed them over, refusing to offer any support when Putin invaded
Russia has not "invaded" Ukraine.
Six weeks after the elected President Yanukovych was compelled to flee from Ukraine, Crimea conducted a referendum and voted overwhelmingly (97%) to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
Donbass was not allowed to conduct its own referendum and to secede peacefully. If a referendum had been conducted, the electorate would have voted overwhelmingly to secede peacefully -- just as Crimea had done.
Therefore, much of the Donbass population has supported a rebellion to try to secede by force of arms.
Russia has provided some material support to that rebellion. However, Russia has not "invaded" Donbass or any other part of Ukraine. The ethnic-Russians supporting the rebellion in Donbass are people who were born in Donbass and have lived their entire lives there. They voted for Yanukovych in the 2010 election, and he won that election fairly.
except shokin didn't go along with prosecuting tymochenko, when it was the expected thing, the ones defending the ousters, are really pulling at strings, the original Crimean inhabitants the tatars, were mostly relocated,
Given the conceded importance of protecting whistleblowers, there should be a persuasive demonstration of relevance before the whistleblower is required to testify. Kaus doesn't provide one.
Kaus suggests that the whistleblower's testimony would be relevant to determining the facts about whether this was a "drug deal" or simply hard bargaining in the national interest, such as Trump's intent, the Ukrainians' reaction, the meaning of the demand for a press conference, etc. Let's call this factually exculpatory evidence. But there is no claim that the whistleblower has any personal knowledge of these matters. Anything he or she might say is almost certainly hearsay, a sufficient basis for starting an investigation, but not admissible as evidence of what actually happened.
There are many persons who do have personal knowledge of what actually happened, some of whom have already given depositions. That testimony is remarkably consistent concerning what went down. And what the deponents have to say is consistent with the whistleblower's second hand account. To the extent that the whistleblower's testimony would be admissible, it would also be cumulative.
Since the whistleblower's testimony is not relevant to determining what happened, his politics or his motive for reporting are not relevant to determining what happened either.
The second line is that the whistleblower's testimony might permit a better judgment concerning the importance of Trump's alleged misconduct. It might, for example, support a judgment that the views of the witnesses concerning fidelity to the Ukraine are extreme or tainted by political bias, so that their sense that something wrong was going on is not worthy of being taken seriously. Indeed, they may have let on to the whistle blower that they did not really think that Trump's misconduct was that serious. Call this normative exculpation. This argument is tarted up with language suggesting that it is the witnesses (possible Ukrainiacs or conspirators) who have done something wrong by testifying.
But this seems like speculation, since as far one can tell from the public record and the deposition testimony, (a) the witnesses have not conspired with each other or with the whistleblower and (b) their views concerning the Ukraine predate this incident, and were both sincerely held and widely shared in both the Executive Branch and Congress, with the exception of Mr. Trump and his personal attorney.
Even if this argument weren't speculative, you'd have to ask why the whistleblower's views on this issue would be genuinely probative one way or the other as contrasted with say, the views of, say, Mr. Bolton, who could testify from a position of authority, that Trump's conduct posed no threat to the national interest, if that's what he believes. Does anyone believe he would so testify?
This analysis ultimately points to the disingenuous quality of the effort to unmask the whistleblower. For the fact is that many witnesses with personal knowledge and/or a decent claim to speak to the seriousness of the issue have not yet testified, including Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, Giulani's Ukrainian co-conspirators, etc. And there are undoubtedly many relevant documents in the possession of the Executive Branch, Trump, and private citizens that bear directly on those questions. If genuine factual or normative exculpation is to be had for Trump, it lies with those people and documents. It is therefore telling that Trump apparently does not want any of these folks to testify, and has sought to block all document production, even of communications with private citizens and with the government of another nation that cannot possibly be privileged. Against that background, the call for the whistleblower's testimony feels like a classic distraction by someone who lacks a convincing defense on the merits.
"The USA should have spent that $1 billion as part of our own $3 billion construction project for our border wall."
Yeah, there's way too much attention in Congress to what's going on in the Ukraine. Its obvious Biden isn't the only Pol making some $$$ off what's going on there. Its either direct graft to family or friends, or its Ukrainian "Americans" giving them "campaign donations". Maybe that also explains so much of the Putin Hate.
Same is true with China, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. There's some corrupting foreign influences in play, and too many Congressmen and Senators WAY TOO interested in the USA being Friends or Enemies of these Countries.
Russia has not "invaded" Ukraine.
And why the hell is it our business in any case? Go look at a map. We're going to fight a war to help Russia and Ukraine settle their border dispute. From 1787 to 1993 nobody in the USA cared that Kiev was ruled by Moscow. Or who rule the Crimea. These two countries will have to work out their own destinies.
The fact Biden is running for President has nothing to do with his ethical and possible illegal activity in 2014 and 2015 involving Ukraine. Why does the media insist on entwining them?
the whole thing then smells like a long-hatched anti-Trump conspiracy (though it does)....
Sundance over at Conservative Treehouse has demonstrated--with names, dates, places--that this IS a long-hatched anti-Trump conspiracy, dating from mid-2016, and including multiple players from CIA, State, NSA, FBI, and other agencies.
They hate him and by extension hate his fans. They hate "America First" foreign policy. They really believe that they are Chosen.
But they are not bulletproof, and they know that, too. That's why the urgency. If it goes too long, someone might get ......ahh.....rambunctious.
Stephen at 5:12 PM
This analysis ultimately points to the disingenuous quality of the effort to unmask the whistleblower.
His name is Eric Ciaramella.
’Given the conceded importance of protecting whistleblowers, there should be a persuasive demonstration of relevance before the whistleblower is required to testify.’
It’s unproven that the person in question meets the statutory requirements for whistleblower protections. Until that’s resolved, your arguments are moot. Nice try, though...
The person responsible for launching an Impeachment Inquiry must testify to its origins. That's it.
Schiff can try to sell a lengthy convoluted explanation of why it is not required. He can read long paragraphs filled with legal sounding reasons, reasonable arguments, logical, measured. But its going to take a lot of time. It's going to sound pretty complicated. But Schiff can go at.
The problem is, the simplest fact is. The person responsible for launching and investigation to reverse an election, must testify.
Tranparency, or wordy excuses, for secrecy. I know which argument will resonate with the voters.
Greg the human-race traitor:
" up to and including nuking Russia to get them to stop invading that country"
What the hell....?????
Mike Sylwester said...
Greg the class traitor at 1:58 PM
The US guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.
The problem is that Ukrainian regions that are populated overwhelmingly by ethnic-Russians want to secede from Ukraine and to join Russia.
That's not a problem. The only problem is if you let those Russian shits get what they want.
What part of "territorial integrity" do you not understand?
"those Ukrainian zealots in Kyiv"
You mean, the Ukrainian patriots who don't want their country enslaved by Putin?
"Russia has not "invaded" Ukraine."
Yes, they did. Crimea is part of Ukraine, not Russia. The US guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
This was not "we'll guarantee your integrity, unless Putin puts together an operation to steal part of it, in which case, you're fucked".
yes, they don't explain that aspect, mike Sylvester, now even mr. z, is small beer, although well connected, through that yearly energy conference in Monaco, shades of Onassis and Edmund sabra, (the latter died after he turned his company over to hsbc, he was the mentor of bill browder of hermitage capital, whose most
As a consequence of the expulsion of the elected President Yanukovych, the Ukrainian regions populated predominantly by ethnic Russians -- who had voted for Yanukovych -- decided correctly that their votes in Ukraine no longer counted and never would count.
Therefore, those ethnic Russians took action to secede from Ukraine.
Mike Sylwester,
The W in your name is a tip-off that you are of Ukrainian origin. So are you one of these Russian leaning Ukrainians? Because it's obvious that Russia should be out of Ukraine. Everywhere that ethnic Russians live that is not Russia they make trouble.
If Russians living in Ukraine don't like it, perhaps they should march east. I guess the problem is that they weren't deported at bayonet point before they could attempt to secede. I don't know what Russian leaning Ukrainians should do. Maybe they should lean Ukrainian instead of Russian.
Let that be a lesson to everybody with ethnic Russians crapping up the place. Kick em out.
Post a Comment