November 22, 2019

"[Fiona] Hill conflated two separate theories of Ukrainian collusion in the 2016 election. One of these is discredited, the other is quite viable."

"Hill helped the Democrats suggest that they have both been debunked.... ... President Trump is largely to blame for propagating the discredited Ukraine theory. It holds that, somehow, it was Ukraine, rather than Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election by cyber-espionage against Democratic email accounts.... The second theory has nothing to do with Russia. It is supported by significant evidence. It includes public professions of support for Clinton and opposition to Trump by Ukrainian officials. It includes acknowledgments by Ukrainian investigators that their Obama administration counterparts encouraged them to investigate Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Bolstering this theory is the fact that Ukrainian officials leaked information damaging to Manafort (a ledger of payments, possibly fabricated) that forced Manafort’s ouster from the Trump campaign, triggering waves of negative publicity for the campaign. A Ukrainian court, in late 2018, concluded that two Ukrainian officials meddled in the election. And in 2018 House testimony, Nellie Ohr — who worked for Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign opposition research firm that produced the lurid and discredited Steele dossier — conceded that a pro-Clinton Ukrainian legislator was a Fusion informant. When Republicans and most Trump supporters refer to evidence of Ukrainian collusion in the 2016 election, it is this collusion theory that they are speaking about. This theory is in no way mutually exclusive with the finding that Russia hacked the DNC accounts — it has nothing to do with the hacking."

Writes Andrew McCarthy (in the NY Post).

134 comments:

Skylark said...

I did a double take when I saw that the ledger was hand written. But they must have had something solid on Manafort, perhaps pressure on his family, to get him to plead guilty.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

President Trump is largely to blame for propagating the discredited Ukraine theory. It holds that, somehow, it was Ukraine, rather than Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election by cyber-espionage against Democratic email accounts

Really? I'd like PROOF that Trump ever said these exact words or a phrase that means the same. I've heard many Democrats, maybe all of them, say this, but I've never seen Trump saying it and I don't believe it. Even if it's McCarthy repeating it.

Skylark said...

Look what else: "Fiona Hill says she heard Putin say directly in 2011 "that he saw American fracking as a great threat to Russian interests.”

Who is the Putin asset now Hillary Rodham "Ban all Fracking” Clinton?

Dave Begley said...

Andy is going to have to go stand in a corner. He cannot contradict a Deep State Harvard PhD with an English accent.

I never understood what the GOP meant about the State Department being contra to American's interests but we saw it in those hearings.

And Fiona Hill wrote an op-ed in the WaPo opposing military aid to Ukraine during the Obama years because that's what Barack wanted.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Highlight and go if you like. This is the link to remind readers the time two Ukrainian comedians punked Adam Schiff by claiming to be Russians with nude Trump photos. Schiff eagerly agreed to further discussions and said he wanted the compromising info on Trump.

Is that even legal? Shouldn't the Senate be subpoenaing Schiff over this? Is this Ukrainian meddling?


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/06/russian_comedians_prank_call_rep_adam_schiff_promise_him_naked_photos_of_trump_from_fsb.html

Dave Begley said...

Skylark is absolutely correct. We'd have $110 WTI now and $4 plus gasoline if Hillary was President. Something like 25% of Russia's GDP comes from oil and gas. That's why Russia wanted Hillary and that's why Russia gave Steele the fake dirt.

Follow the money.

And what's in those 33,000 deleted emails of Hillary's? Lots of deals with Russia and crooks in the Middle East.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

It includes acknowledgments by Ukrainian investigators that their Obama administration counterparts encouraged them to investigate Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort

Yeah, but these were Democrats so all good, right?

Q22 said...

The left conflates almost everything about the 2016 election in a smoke and mirrors effort to make the Steele dossier claims seem real.

Me: Mueller found nothing
Them: What do you mean - he got lots of convictions.

Me: He got no convictions on main issue he was investigating
Them: They all lied about their Russian contacts. How suspicious is that?

Me: But they didn't find any Russian collusion
Them: The found plenty of Russian contacts

Me: But no collusion
Them: But there was Russian interference. Why do you deny this?

Limited blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Begley said...

Minor correction. Gasoline is $4 plus in California but only $2.39 in Omaha.

If Hillary won, gas would be $6 plus in California. The same California that has gobs of oil just off its shores.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I'm with Mike on this. I've never heard of this theory of Ukraine hacking the DNC.

I want exact quotes before I'll believe this.

My guess is they are referring to Trump asking about CrowdStrike having the DNC servers. Remember no one in the US government ever inspected the DNC servers. Mueller didn't bother to check the DNC servers to see if the information was extracted from the inside or outside.

Nonapod said...

Up until now, the problem has been that there's too many conflicting narratives for many low engagement voters to even begin to sift through. In service of the Democrats, the media have successfully muddied the waters with all sorts of alternative interpretations of events and the suppression of established facts that make their team look bad. It's truly an information war on a massive scale.

It's infuriating. The information exists, but because it has requires both effort to obtain it and faith that the sources are reliable and not propaganda, many otherwise persuadable voters may remain in the dark.

narciso said...

It has to do with the malware they employ, thats not my theory, other analysts have made it.

narciso said...



We derive from here:

https://shadowproof.com/2017/04/12/around-empire-episode-13-crowdstrikes-russian-hacking-claims-feat-jeffrey-carr/

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Is this the McCarthy from National Review. He's always late to the party. He always starts from the assumption the DNC-MSM talking points are legitimate. Then he's questioned and he goes back and reviews the evidence. Then and only then, he'll conclude the talking points were bullshit.

Then he'll write a column saying how wrong he was and how surprised he is that the DNC-MSM talking points were bullshit.

And he's the best the professional Republicans have.what a poor excuse for a pundit class.

Otto said...

Is there an in-depth post- obama report by our government showing all the details of Russian hacking of the DNC server? Do we know the present location of the hacked DNC server?

gilbar said...

WAIT A MINUTE!!

you're saying, that a Life Long, Card Carrying DEMOCRAT; would intentionally skew (and TWIST!) facts, just to make a republican look bad?
Say it ain't so, Jo!

Skylark said...

" made sure to claim this Ukrainian influence story has been 'de-bunked’.”

Has the New York Times retracted their August 2016 story that decapitated Trump’s campaign. Of course it brought us Kellyanne Conway, so the Democrats may rue the day they did it.

Skylark said...

"'m with Mike on this. I've never heard of this theory of Ukraine hacking the DNC.”

He’s confused. The theory is that Crowdsrike is partially owned by a Ukraine oligarch and, as we know per Mueller Report, it is on their word alone that our “intelligence agencies” conclude Russia was behind the hack of the DNC, despite some very weird timing problems with the theory, BTW, and presumably, to come to that conclusion, Crowdstrike may have taken a complete image of that server, for example, a bit copy of the hard drive. Or may know where one is.

Skylark said...

In fact, you could say that in ham-handedly trying to help Hillary, Ukraine delivered to Trump the spark his campaign needed in the first women ever to successfully run a presidential campaign.

It’s kind of like the Patriots being fined draft picks, but getting Belichik.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

the corrupt news media will not report this.

Instead, they pimp fraud and liar Andy McCabe and his little soundbites.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Nunes: Democrats got caught

rhhardin said...

Conflation brings us together.

buwaya said...

A bit off on a tangent, and 50,000 feet up from the details of the particular argument, but my working assumption for many years now, and part of the accurate world-view of the systems we are discussing -

From Instapundit -
"HYPOTHESIS: What’s coming out about Ukraine — basically U.S. aid money going in, and then part of the money in the form of kickbacks funneled back to U.S. political figures via financial firms and family members — is not unusual, but rather something closer to the norm."

And its not just kickbacks on US Aid. There are likely many and much more significant mechanisms that are used to sustain and enrich the powers that be through manipulation of the US Federal government. Paranoia is reality, seek and you shall find.

JAORE said...

Are we near a tipping point? Are the walls closing in? Is this a bombshell?

Don't look to MSM for the answer.

traditionalguy said...

OMG, a careful and accurate analysis of an issue.I am stunned. Is it Sadie Hawkins Day?

The rest of the story will be why all the Ukraine guys diligently helped the Clintons.That exposes the Dem gravy train of massive foreign aide poured into Ukraine ("to fight Putin" that Obama let have whatever territory he wanted) and immediately kicked back in laundered money into the Dems for running their Destroy America work.

NB:The largest disclosed donor to the Clinton Foundation was The Ukraine's CIA installed government. Why?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Who’s confused, Skylark? If you’re alleging it’s me then please refer to my post not Bill’s addendum to it because my only confusion at this point is what you meant.

buwaya said...

The other notable thing is that many of the players in all this did little to hide what they were doing. A great deal has been found through open sources plus the work such as Judicial Watch has been doing with very limited resources. The system did very little to cover its tracks.

What kept it going is that the system included all the official means of oversight and internal discipline. And to a great degree, as we are seeing, it still does.

And it still controls the parts of the press with the resources to investigate the system. Everyone else has to work on a shoestring, as guerilla operators.

buwaya said...

The only prudent conclusion is that your own government, its structure, the people that staff and control its agencies, are fundamentally inimical to the people.

Phil said...

The notion that corruption is endemic to Congress is fairly obvious. They make $174k per year.

That's it. Yes, they get travel allowances etc. but $174k isn't enough to become a millionaire - and yet most of them do. They're grifters. We're the marks.

narciso said...

Largely, but it seems to have displayed the byzantine dystopia of brazil.

narciso said...

I had to remember the key words because positronic brain, yes judicial watch can pull up data others cannot.

Skylark said...

"my only confusion at this point is what you meant.”

McCarthy is confused.

buwaya said...

"The notion that corruption is endemic to Congress is fairly obvious."

This is ancient. It goes back, in the US, to the 19th century at least.
Check out Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age" for popular attitudes on the subject of politicians.

What is different now is that the Federal Government proper, its actual structure, is a vastly greater economic force and it is the implementer of the vastly larger scale of modern corruption, or the servicing of the interests that actually control it.

readering said...

Potus on Fox this morning spewing the first theory.

narciso said...

Well youre acquainted with the deepstate i your country, sterling seagrave brought then back here, about marcos and the events of 1971,

Nonapod said...

My impression is that deep, systemic corruption is pretty much endemic to Ukraine (as well as other post-Soviet regimes). It's obviously a corruption of both government and big business (Burisma). Cleary in Ukraine anything can be bought for the right price. Characters like Biden and Clinton obviously took advantage of this state of affairs to enrich themselves and their kith and kin, and also to dig up dirt on team Trump. I believe this is the dark truth.

And I think Trump either outright knew or pretty much surmised all this while he was trying to figure out this new Ukrainian president, where his loyaties were.

Murph said...

Re: Crowdstrike.
TCH had a post on that.

Suspecting they could prove the Russian hacking claim was false, lawyers representing Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack. When the DOJ responded to the Stone motion they made a rather significant admission. Not only did the FBI not review the DNC server, the FBI/DOJ never even saw the Crowdstrike report.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/06/15/doj-admits-fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-report-on-dnc-russian-hacking-claim/

Big Mike said...

despite some very weird timing problems with the theory

Specifically, the files were downloaded at a bit rate that is several times faster than achievable across the Internet, though absolutely consistent with downloading to a thumb drive or removable hard drive via a USB port. But CrowdStrike employees are experts on Cher security. Just ask them.

buwaya said...

"Potus on Fox this morning spewing the first theory."

See above on the "first theory".

Who shall investigate Crowdstrike?
Isn't the lack of official agency curiosity, or even due diligence, concerning their conclusions in the DNC and Clinton matters - of interest?
They are fundamental to the entire case, and several other related ones.

buwaya said...

"My impression is that deep, systemic corruption is pretty much endemic to Ukraine"

It is endemic to the US, much more so, in terms of absolute scale. Indeed it is possible that much of the "endemic" corruption in the rest of the world, at a high level, is just the local symptom of a disease that has been exported by the US.

Temujin said...

I've got a vision of Democratic Congresscreatures with their hands over their ears, repeating loudly, "La, la, la, la, I can't hear you."

For an expert on Ukraine, Doctor Fiona does seem awfully naive about them. But then I just read a lot and I am not an expert on Ukraine.

Drago said...

Historical illiterate readering: "Potus on Fox this morning spewing the first theory."

LOLOLOLOL

You mean spewing the very same stuff the NYT, Politico et al reported quite specifically upon in early 2017!!!

History began 17 minutes ago for readering.

Also, congrats on Labour going Full Anti-Semite. You must be so proud.

Murph said...

If you're not reading John Solomon, you're missing out on factual, substantiated, reporting.
...not presumption, not inferences, not fictive.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/

readering said...

Drago fails to understand the distinction McCarthy makes. Also what's with me and the British Labour Party? More confusion for Drago.

tommyesq said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said

I'm with Mike on this. I've never heard of this theory of Ukraine hacking the DNC.

I want exact quotes before I'll believe this.

My guess is they are referring to Trump asking about CrowdStrike having the DNC servers. Remember no one in the US government ever inspected the DNC servers. Mueller didn't bother to check the DNC servers to see if the information was extracted from the inside or outside.


I agree - I believe what Trump was suggesting was not that the Ukraine hacked the DNC servers, but instead that they were complicit in cooperating with the DNC in covering up the alleged hacking (including, perhaps, that Seth Rich was the one leaking the information). Also, never forget that the real harm of the DNC hack/e-mail leak was that the leaked material accurately set forth the positions of the DNC and the individuals involved.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Trump is guilty of mind crime... and saying "Biden and Clinton are corrupt"
guards... seize him!

Howard said...

Drago needs to replace his LLR whipping boy, so he is using scatter shot to trigger you into feeding his spank bank. Next he will gleefully describe your hunger for eating baby body parts with your newage transgendered shaman

Nonapod said...

Indeed it is possible that much of the "endemic" corruption in the rest of the world, at a high level, is just the local symptom of a disease that has been exported by the US.

I don't believe that the USA is source of all corruption, just an enhancer to already existing corruption. When US money and power gets introduced to a country, it can be like adding gasoline to an already burning fire. But the US didn't necessarily start that fire.

I believe that corruption is a feature of all human systems. It will inevitably arise over time as systems get larger. At the most basic level this is because individual accountability decreases as more people and more people are brought into an existing system. General oversite also becomes more difficult as systmes get large too. This is true whether we're talking about a government or a business or a charity or any orgazination of human beings.

Michael K said...

The crowdstrike reference must be what McCarthy was referring to. I agree he is usually late since he is far too trusting.

The DNC sever hack had to be an inside job. Probably Seth Rich, who was a Bernie bro working inside DNC. The Russia hack is bullshit.

I wonder if we will ever learn the truth? I even give some credence to the Alex Jones poison story.

The depth of corruption is discouraging. I doubt Trump had any idea it was this bad.

Skylark said...

Another problem with Crowdstrike’s theory is that some of the emails were written after Crowdstrike claimed they had booted the Russians from the DNC using their asset protection system.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Politico challenges Politico's reporting on Ukraine's 2016 pro-Hillary efforts

Funny how leftwing journos have to erase their own narratives.

Skylark said...

If you want to know why Seth Rich would do it, just read Donna Brazille’s book.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Thanks, Skylark. I’m delighted to agree with you but disappointed in GOPe McCarthy.

GRW3 said...

I think McCarthy is also conflating, the general actions of the Russians to interfere and the unproven assertion that it was Russians who got Hillary's e-mails (an assertion made by Crowdstrike) and gave then to Wikileaks.

narciso said...

1984 is a how to manual for them, it's rather striking how little they know about these matters, McCarthy's about a year and a half behind the curve,

Bay Area Guy said...

Andy McCarthy's "Ball of Collusion" is a really good book, and he spends a lotta time on the Ukraine issues that pre-dated the Mueller Russian Collusion hoax. All I can say is that Ukraine is corrupt, and the ins and outs are hard to follow.

Impudent Warwick said...

buwaya said...

“it is possible that much of the "endemic" corruption in the rest of the world, at a high level, is just the local symptom of a disease that has been exported by the US.”

Exported? I would agree with “supported,” since we certainly look for whatever leverage we can get in other lands. But Americans didn’t invent corruption, however eagerly we’ve embraced it.

Tommy Duncan said...

Is it just me, or does Fiona Hill look like Keanu Reeves in drag?

narciso said...

well as America acquired the accountrements of an empire, like late republic rome,


https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/11/21/fiona-hill-undermines-multiple-democrat-premises-2/

Rory said...

"It includes public professions of support for Clinton and opposition to Trump by Ukrainian officials."

One FOIA dump that should be obtained is all of the correspondence with foreign governments about statements the governments made before the election. Also, anything about Obama's Brexit speech.

Chuck said...

"Donald Trump does not have a clue about any of this, careening wildly from vows to stay out of the fray (leaving it in Vladimir Putin’s nefarious hands) to promises that the earth will be indiscriminately scorched. The threat against us has metastasized in our eighth year under a president[Obama] who quite consciously appeases the enemy. But the remedy is not a president oblivious of the enemy."

~ Andrew McCarthy, January 22, 2016, in National Review.

Drago said...

readering: "Drago fails to understand the distinction McCarthy makes."

LOL

McCarthy's take has nothing to do with the FACT of legacy media reporting on Ukrainian efforts in interfering in our 2016 election in collusion with the democrats/Hillary which documented what the Ukrainians were doing (to support Hillary) until that is the word went out to go all "hush hush" on that stuff since it didn't serve the narrative.

Similar to how all the legacy media hacks went Full Speed Ahead on a UN report on treatment of migrant children in the US......until it was discovered that the report was from 2015.

Voila!! Immediate disappearing of stories without explanation.

Note: not "rewrites" or corrections.....complete annihilation of the stories as if they had never existed.

buwaya said...

The US has "assisted" many countries inherent tendencies to corruption, or to be clearer perhaps, has enhanced the available stakes of the game and added a global component of a circular trade in payoffs, skimming, capital flight. European nations have done the same, to be clear, with their own international aid and military sales, etc.

This goes back to things like trade policies and international loans, both public and private, plus international agencies like the World Bank, which have always been instruments of US policy, both official and privatised. Corruption in military sales is even more ancient.

The EU has done the same, with its own aid system. It has provided an income stream for local interests to skim, plus the same for those unaccountable people governing the EU and each instance od a "deep state". Mutual back-scratching, and all win, at the expense of EU taxpayers. But this is small potatoes compared to the stakes the US circular system plays for.

Drago said...

LOLOLOLOLOL

LLR Chuck desperately pulling up Andy McCarthy hot takes from 2016 when Andy refused to accept what the dems had actually done.

Needless to say, Andy has now come quite around on that, hasn't he?

Seriously LLR Chuck, this is one of your more pathetic pro-dem/lefty efforts. And given your track record, that's saying something!

But hey, we get it: "conserving conservatism by supporting all democrat lefties at all times".

Yancey Ward said...

No one has proven the Russians hacked the DNC servers- no one, not even Mueller. All of the this goes back to the DNC paid company CrowdStrike's assertions that the Russians did it- this is a conflict of interest sort of testimony, and the conflict is particularly strong because the DNC refused the FBI access to the servers or the mirrors of them, and you have to ask why they refused. I can't imagine a judge allowing as evidence in a trial what Mueller accepted as evidence for indicting the Russian GRU/FSB agents. It would be the equivalent of accepting as evidence a DNA technician testifying that the defendant is guilty because he conducted a DNA test from a sample provided by the victim's family, but then also not even showing the steps taken or the raw data.

All Mueller had, as he admitted in the Stone court filings, was that they got the redacted summary from CrowdStrike. Mueller could have simply subpoenaed the servers and/or the mirrors from the DNC and CrowdStrike and more or less proven the allegation that it was the Russians, and wouldn't one think that Mueller would want to have done this? I know almost none of the anti-Trump commenters here bothered to read the Mueller Report, but I encourage everyone to read the sections about the hacks. Mueller tried hard to argue that the Russians hacked the DNC and passed the info on to Wikileaks, but at the end of it all, Mueller was forced to admit that they could never prove that Wikileaks got the DNC material from the Russians- he literally threw up his hands and said they couldn't rule out a hand to hand transfer- in short, no evidence at all.

Drago said...

Andy McCarthy has been cranking articles out multiple times per week for the last several years and appears on TV almost daily.

Yet LLR Chuck has to cherry pick comments from almost 4 years ago before the perfidy of his beloved dems came more fully to light.

And that's all you need to know about Maddow and Dick Durbin and Da Nang Dick fanboy LLR Chuck.

MadTownGuy said...

buwaya said...
"The notion that corruption is endemic to Congress is fairly obvious."

This is ancient. It goes back, in the US, to the 19th century at least.
Check out Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age" for popular attitudes on the subject of politicians.

What is different now is that the Federal Government proper, its actual structure, is a vastly greater economic force and it is the implementer of the vastly larger scale of modern corruption, or the servicing of the interests that actually control it.
"

There's another factor. Powers and rights that used to belong to us as individuals have been surrendered to our local, state and Federal government in the name of security or stability. This has been accomplished by government offering benefits in exchange for those powers. Much has been made about taxation and regulation as means of control. But the provision of benefits is also a means of control. The provider may at its whim alter the deal, or withhold it as a means of coercion (remember the closure of National Parks during the sequester?).

Current narratives portray corporations as evil and government as benevolent. But the difference between corporations and governments is that the latter holds the power of the sword, and the former doesn't. That's why I see the movement toward the political left as dangerous.

buwaya said...

McCarthy has since changed his tune.

The truth is that you Americans are in an internal caste war that will end very badly.
One side must destroy the other to survive.

Your foreign "enemies" aren't, they are just other players working within their own constraints and for their own interests. Some of these conflict with some of yours. But you do not have a "religious" ideological conflict with them.

Your greatest enemies are your own internal factions. And it is this internecine American war that is the greatest danger to global politico-economic stability, this is the global Yellowstone caldera.

Temujin said...

Dr. Fiona Hill is just one of thousands of full-time, completely entrenched government bureaucrats who, as it turns out, actually run this country. Here's a taste: Fed Agencies

And I have to say I agree with Michael K.: The depth of corruption is discouraging. And I'll add, even frightening. These people have been, and continue to be, engaged in a coup. They are used to running things. The newly elected Presidents, or Senators, or Congresscreatures are merely placeholders in seats. Until Trump. He's so out of the ordinary, he simply does not act or react in a way they can predict. His mistake was not cleaning house as much as possible with those surrounding him.

The worst thing about all of this is the number of people who vote Democrat, and the media (but I repeat myself) thinking that it's good to have an all-powerful entrenched bureaucracy running things. Shameful in a country once based on individual rights and limited government.

Drago said...

Bay Area Guy: "Andy McCarthy's "Ball of Collusion" is a really good book,..."

Whoa BAG!! Slow down.

You don't want to make LLR Chuck cry....again....do you?

Writing about anything that Andy McCarthy wrote after figuring out what LLR Chuck's beloved dems had been up to is likely to send LLR Chuck back into therapy!! (I'm presuming LLR Chuck's previous violence "issues" related to women and children was handled in that way)

Iman said...

“If Hillary won, gas would be $6 plus in California. The same California that has gobs of oil just off its shores.“

Blue state “governance” and a voting demographic that isn’t even intelligent enough to understand that increasing gas taxes to repair roads will NEVER result in repaired roads, but will result in one more slush fund to waste on idiotic leftwing pet projects.

Iman said...

And I write that as a person who at one time felt blessed to be a Californian, but after 62 years, will soon be moving out of state.

Drago said...

I suspect by Feb or March LLR Chuck and Howard and the other morons will have circled back to hoax rape accusations against Trump because everything else will have fallen away by then.

Well, that and the 25th amendment nonsense. Maybe another brief attempt at resurrecting emoluments, but that didn't work the first 14 times they tried it.

MadTownGuy said...

Skylark said...
"If you want to know why Seth Rich would do it, just read Donna Brazille’s book."

Except that after the book was released, for some reason, she walked back her claim that the primary was co-opted by the Clinton campaign. I wonder why she changed her mind.

buwaya said...

To answer narciso, in the 1970's when the Marcos government went on an international loan binge, that was the source of tremendous skimming and capital flight, a massive upscaling of the local tradition of corruption, there were four parties to these things -

- The corrupt local borrowers, in every case persons or firms in cahoots with the dictator and his minions;

- The nations government, under the dictators thumb of course, which was supposed to provide oversight on loans it was guaranteeing;

- The US government or its international agencies, likewise having a duty of oversight;

- The lenders, US and other foreign banks, which arranged for loan guarantees, etc., and lent anyway to obviously bad risks.

I was working at the time for the principal auditing firm in the country, a correspondent firm with the American auditors Arthur Andersen. We were in the thick of this, providing support for servicing these loans, providing paperwork such as business plans (in the management services part of the firm, which later became part of US Accenture), to international lenders, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and various US agencies.

Our senior partner was even appointed Prime Minister, because he kept the books so well, so plausibly. They were in fact meticulous, but basically fraudulent. He went to his grave acclaimed for his professionalism.

So I know how this stuff works.

daskol said...

The only prudent conclusion is that your own government, its structure, the people that staff and control its agencies, are fundamentally inimical to the people.

The people that staff it and control its agencies, for sure. The whole administrative or deep state. However its structure is the reason why all this information is being revealed in details that would be hard to come by in any other society. The system, or structure, is providing for that transparency. The adversarial contest between officials, between classes of people, is working to reveal details of corruption that, while long assumed, have rarely been a focus. I'm not being panglossian here, but rather affirming that a structure of government that is inherently mistrustful of people has its benefits.

Yancey Ward said...

"I wonder why she changed her mind."

Close brushes with suicide have a way of concentrating the mind.

gilbar said...

Dear Professor Althouse;
I REALLY appreciate the slackening of moderation. I realize that many of us (including, ME) are Very trying; and you must often question your slackening decision.

I just wanted you to know; that i had an Incredibly Snarky remark that i was in the process of typing here.... When I realized that open comments are a HUGE Gift to us all, and that we (by which i mean I) need to watch our snarkyness, and keep it under check.... Just wanted you to know, that i'm trying (in More ways than one)
gilbar

Otto said...

@Yancy Ward - thank you.
After 3 years and millions of dollars spent we still do not have a definitive report on who hacked the DNC server and how it got to wikipedia . Every is just pontificating including McCarthy. We are like sheep just bleating.

buwaya said...

Note that the "deep" corruption of that particular high point of international finance took place in the Ford, Carter and early Reagan administrations.

Michael K said...

His mistake was not cleaning house as much as possible with those surrounding him.

Two problems with that: He didn't know how bad it was and who would he choose ? The people he has chosen are immediate targets of attacks like those at DeVos and Sarah Sanders. Civil Service also protects these people. Nuking DC is not yet an option.

gilbar said...

MadTownGuy said...

Donna Brazille’s book....
Except that after the book was released, for some reason, she walked back her claim that the primary was co-opted by the Clinton campaign. I wonder why she changed her mind.


I presume that she received a call from the Suicide Hotline, telling her that hers was on deck?

Skylark said...

A third of Democrats want Biden investigated. Good job C*aramella!

Skylark said...

"Except that after the book was released, for some reason, she walked back her claim that the primary was co-opted by the Clinton campaign”

At that point, Seth Rich was dead.

Browndog said...

I'm sure the folks that still think Horowitz is a white hat will maintain it was a mere coincidence, rotten luck, when he releases his "bombshell" report just days AFTER the House votes to impeach Trump.

buwaya said...

What I know about is a little case of a few billion 1970's-80's dollars, in an unimportant country. Just a taste, certainly, of the feasts some people were enjoying at the time.

If it was so then, what is it like now?

If it was like that, in such a minor country, what has the US relationship with Saudi Arabia, or China, say, implicated in terms of corruption on the part of the US government over all these years?

narciso said...

there was a consultant, john perkins who offered the 'deep dirt' on supposed international transactions in south America, the middle east in the 00s, marcos then Duterte now, the international bogeyman, specially now that the son is now running for president, I was speaking more of the Machiavellian notion that marcos or the constabulary were behind the events that occasioned the coup, that year,

Nonapod said...

I also agree with the sentiment that corruption in our own government is far more consequential than corruption in most other places, and not just in terms of US citizens. We're the richest, most powerful nation on Earth. It stands to reason that everything and anything we do, good, bad, or indifferent, tends to have a greater impact on the world than analogous actions by other states. So naturally, our government's corruption is more significant than corruption of the governement of say... Ireland or Ethopia or wherever.

And since we choose to involve ourselves in so many other nations in the name of our interests, our own corruption is more directly significant. Obviously it also sets a bad example if our VP is clearly on-the-take for instance. What message does that send to Ukrainians?

Iman said...

“ Is it just me, or does Fiona Hill look like Keanu Reeves in drag?”

Meh... a cross between Charlie Watts and... Jeff Beck?

n.n said...

However its structure is the reason why all this information is being revealed

Religious/moral philosophy for people capable of self-moderating behavior. Competing interests and secular incentives to mitigate the progress of others running amuck.

narciso said...

as I pointed out elsewhere, the history of the general prosecutor, who came after shokin is instructive, I noticed they dismiss him in Ukraine because a) he's not an attorney b) he did prison time, but as paul Harvey would say, that's not the whole story, he was trained as an engineer, and he was an anti corruption activist, going back to the 90s, eventually he ended up interior minister in a reform cabinet during the orange revolution, but some corrupt prosecutor sent him to jail, on one of these bogus charges, the prosecutor himself went to jail, on unrelated charges, he was amnestied for part of his sentence then joined the maidan movement, because of that, poroshenko appointed him to that office, accounts vary exactly on how he handled his office, friction with some of his underlings, then he was on the outs that's when he met up with guiliani,

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stoutcat said...

buwaya said at 10:10 AM...
"The only prudent conclusion is that your own government, its structure, the people that staff and control its agencies, are fundamentally inimical to the people."

Hence the Second Amendment, hence people with guns, hence "deplorables.

Stoutcat said...

“Is it just me, or does Fiona Hill look like Keanu Reeves in drag?”

"Meh... a cross between Charlie Watts and... Jeff Beck?"

Would you believe Todd Rundgren?

Bruce Hayden said...

“The people that staff it and control its agencies, for sure. The whole administrative or deep state. However its structure is the reason why all this information is being revealed in details that would be hard to come by in any other society. The system, or structure, is providing for that transparency. The adversarial contest between officials, between classes of people, is working to reveal details of corruption that, while long assumed, have rarely been a focus. I'm not being panglossian here, but rather affirming that a structure of government that is inherently mistrustful of people has its benefits.”

The Germans were very meticulous with their record keeping, which turned out to be extremely useful after WW II when we investigated their war crimes.

Stephen said...

1. Trump asked specifically about Crowd Strike. That is, he was pursuing the Russian theory, rejected by Mueller, Senate intelligence, all of his advisors, and even McCarthy, it would appear.

2. Doyle's testimony on cross made clear that she thought McCarthy's alternative theory was bogus, too, not because the things he refers to didn't happen, but that they weren't in fact improper interference by any reasonable standard.

3. If the black book/op-ed stuff is unlawful interference in the US election, then wouldn't announcing a Ukrainian investigation of the leading Democratic candidate in terms approved by the President's personal lawyer, but without disclosing that the investigation was coerced by the US President, be even more clearly unlawful? And wouldn't that simply strengthen the case for impeachment?

4. If Trump was actually pursuing McCarthy's theory, and there were grounds for believing that it would serve American law enforcement interests to do so (1) why didn't he involve Barr in the inquiry, instead of keeping him in the dark about it; (2) why did he drop the inquiry as soon as the whistle blower's complaint became known?

n.n said...

Several hundred million from post-coup Kiev at last count. Several million in direct deposits to Quid Pro Joe et al. And direct intervention on behalf of Clinton in the cover-up of Water Closet. Kiev is, at best, the present global nexus of progressive corruption.

this internecine American war that is the greatest danger to global politico-economic stability, this is the global Yellowstone caldera

So, if it's a progressive process, then a global conflict to relieve the pressure, or to cover-up the causes, is inevitable. I suppose that we should hope for a successful impeachment that will satiate the appetites and appease the mortal gods and minor deities. Perhaps hold a reproductive rite or two or a hundred million. Let us bray.

buwaya said...

The simple answer, Stephen, is that Trump does not entirely trust Barr.
I wouldn’t either.
Barr has loyalties to his own part of the deep state. And who knows who else. This is a corrupting system that implicates all.
And Barr and co - and everyone else really - knows all this already.
These were open secrets, absurdly open.
They never needed to be told, all these years.
And yet they did nothing.

And it is certain that this thing re Biden is just wave spume off an ocean.

Skylark said...

Stephan,

Why is the president forbidden from doing discovery in his own defense, since, at the time, and still now, Schiff, has an open investigation regarding "Russian Collusion” an apparent disinformation campaign by Putin or just a smear job by the DNC. Why can’t Trump’s lawyer chase down every lead?

There is a lot of smoke in Ukraine and some fire. The DOJ, CIA, and FBI had proven themselves hostile to Trump. Even now Taylor is denying visas to Ukrainians Giuliani wants to talk to in the US. Why shouldn’t he use a trusted person to look into election interference from Ukraine that certainly happened?

And. why does Biden just skate on this? Why is it forbidden to even consider what Biden was doing there and his obvious conflicts of interest in Ukraine?

n.n said...

What Is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired By DNC Has Ties To Hillary Clinton, A Ukrainian Billionaire, And Google

The CrowdStrike theory based on fungible software was debunked with forensic evidence that implicates a disgruntled Democrat insider, no longer viable, as the so-called "Deep Plumber" who overflowed Water Closet, including Obama spied, Clinton colluded, Biden obstructed, DNC denied, the mainstream press misinformed, and the social media platforms (Alphabet/Google et al) steered public inquiries.

Skylark said...

It’s pretty clear from the timing, that Biden’s office, including, probably, Ciaramella Whistleblower, since he was at the meetings, per the logs, that the cover story that the IMF and everybody else wanted Shokin out was cooked up after the move to remove Shokin.

It’s also clear from FOIA that Burisma dropped Hunter’s name with the State Department, got meetings with them, hired a DNC connected law firm and right at the end of the Obama administration, Burisma got off on a tax charge with a slap on the wrist sized fine.

n.n said...

that Trump does not entirely trust Barr

Trump was forged in the bowels of New York City, and is well acquainted with the history and progress of secular corruption. He is unlikely to underestimate the opposition, or to overestimate support a la Republicans re feminists and superior exploitation a.k.a. sexual harassment a.k.a. #MeToo. Barr is given the benefit of the doubt based on past performance, but he has yet to prove his mettle and orientation.

Skylark said...

All in all there is enough smoke there to warrant a look, and we have just had a week of testimony that shows why normal channels could not be trusted.

hombre said...

The Democrat BS ramps up as the polls/viewership turn against them. Contradictions? Meh. Fabrications by Deep State trash? Meh. Lavrentiy Beria tactics? Meh?

It’s all about running interference for crooked Democrats!

Stephen said...

Buwaya and Skylark,

Buwaya, The idea that Trump couldn't trust his hand picked, loyal and partisan attorney general to bless and conduct this inquiry is, to me, compelling evidence that he knew what he was doing was not proper or lawful. Barr's complete silence on the question since is pretty compelling, too.

Skylark, I certainly think that Trump was entitled to have his private attorney gather information for Trump's personal defense against any pending or anticipated charge. But what was sought here would not have altered Mueller's no collusion finding. Moreover, what Giuliani sought was not an investigation, but an announcement that would blacken the reputation of his leading opponent, and Trump put the entire weight of American power behind that request. That seems like a very different case to me.

buwaya said...

"The idea that Trump couldn't trust his hand picked, loyal and partisan attorney general "

These are assertions, not facts. We do not know for a fact what is in their hearts.

How loyal and partisan? How loyal and partisan are HIS staff? Barr has no long loyal relationship with Trump.

We do not know what Trump thinks of Barr, or of his staff, or of his departments and their staffs.

Washington is a snakepit, and the most prudent thing is to trust no-one.

Michael K said...

compelling evidence that he knew what he was doing was not proper or lawful.

It's nice that Althouse keeps a few crazies around as pets.

Murph said...

As Buwaya said at 11/22/19, 1:38 PM

Also (and just surmising here):
(a) Barr has a "day job," and finite time to devote himself and/or his staff to following rabbit trails that may or may not lead to ... something useful.
(b) He presumably has [mostly] the same staff that was in place on his Day One. As we've seen elsewhere, premature disclosure of information, be it true or be it false (a/k/a leaking), can damage the overall credibility of perfectly logical and supported final conclusions.
Trust is a scarce commodity in D.C., it seems.
Finally, (c) if Barr may be called upon (receive a referral?) to act on revealed evidence of nefarious behavior by federal employees or agencies, is it not better that he and his office be held separate from the dirty work of any investigation so as to avoid any appearance of bias in the determination therefor?

Murph said...

I should have written something more like "held separate from the GRUNT work of any investigation" as "dirty work" nay imply something illegal or questionable. Which is not what I meant to suggest.

Nonapod said...

For me the clear "quid quo pro" or bribery line hasn't really been drawn. But as I've said elsewhere, even if it were unequivocally shown that Trump intended his "favor" to be taken as absolutely threat to withhold money, I still wouldn't hold that as an impeachable offense. To me, an impeachable offense would be if Trump clearly demanded that the president of the Ukraine fabricate evidence of wrong doing by Biden (or whomever) whole cloth.

Of course people may be tempted to read between the lines, to mind read, to infer whatever they imagine. People who see Trump as a villian or a mafia don are gonna imagine all sorts of intentions. But, to me, looking at from the outside, the whole Hunter Biden/Burisma thing seems pretty indefensible and therefore legitimately worthy of investigation (ie, in the US interest).

TreeJoe said...

Fiona Hill said she didn't recall Eric Ciamarella...

And in closed door testimony, her transcript reads,

"...Hill appeared to become frustrated with the line of questioning and told Castor, "Look, and I'm sorry to get testy about, you know, this back and forth, because I'm really worried about these conspiracy theories, and I'm worried that all of you are going to go down a rabbit hole, you know, looking for things that are not going to be at all helpful to the American people or to our future election in 2020.""

So Hill gets upset at questioning about the people involved in her line of work because it's a conspirary theory, rabbit hole, or not helpful to the american people and the 2020 election....

Totally non-partisan. There is active scrubbing going on in relation to online archives and Eric Ciamarella. The same goes for Hill-Ciamarella, where some previous articles I read had them closely working together and now they are either buried or no longer in existence. And Hill is indicating she's not familiar with him with "I can't remember" answers to questions about her predecessor.

TJM said...

The Democratic Party is a crime organization masquerading as a political party and has been since the Clintoons took it over

Skylark said...

"But what was sought here would not have altered Mueller's no collusion finding.”

Schiff still had the investigation open. It was ongoing.

As far as Biden, that came up incidentally and probably shocked the conscience of Trump and Giuliani. But you go ahead with the line that the Bidens have done nothing improper, for certain values of “improper.” If you think that is a winning argument. The “favor” was about 2016 interference. 2016 is what drew Trump’s attention. But it is nice of you to kindly set the boundaries of any possible defense by Trump. If it doesn’t have to do with convicting him, it’s irrelevant, right?

I would have thought that the Bill of Rights would at least count as a “penumbra” regarding giving the accused rights, but it turns out that the founders never intended that.

Imagine if liberals today had written “My Cousin Vinny” Here would be the closing argument of the prosector and no defense would be allowed:

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, these two men stand accused of brutal murder. The most despicable kind of murder, of an innocent man. The prosecution rests."

Skylark said...

Trump picked Rex Tillerson, who immediately began stabbing him in the back. Look at Bolton, still pissed because Trump didn’t give him his hot war with Iran!

Char Char Binks said...

Hill also accused Trump of antisemitism. After all, many conservatives are opposed to Soros and other Jews, and Russia wanted Trump to win the election, and Russia is where “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” came from. Trump is not only filled with hatred for Jews such as the Kushners, he hates Jews so much that he’s even antisemitic against the gentile Hill.

Francisco D said...

Trump asked specifically about Crowd Strike. That is, he was pursuing the Russian theory, rejected by Mueller, Senate intelligence, all of his advisors, and even McCarthy, it would appear.

You mean he did not buy the spin that examination of the DNC servers (by Crowdstrike) was on the up and up?

He also does not believe that Hillary was innocent although the FBI "experts" cleared her just as they accepted Crowstrike's "investigation."

How dare he be skeptical. For that we must IMPEACH.

Your talking points only work with Democrats who are dumb and willfully ignorant, Stephen. tell the DNC they need to improve their game.

Stephen said...

Skylark

How can you say Biden came up incidentally and shocked Trump's conscience when it was Trump who expressly raised the Biden investigation at p. 4 of the July 25 call? It sounds as though you don't have even minimal familiarity with the evidence.

Re setting boundaries, I was not doing that. You had stated that you thought Trump, as a private citizen, was entitled to seek discovery in his own defense from the Ukraine. I agreed that he had that right, but concluded that the evidence does not support the view that that was what Trump was doing. You may think my account is wrong, but I am not denying the right of any defendant to gather evidence in his own defense.

The same issue obviously comes up with impeachment. But here Trump controls almost all the evidence, including that concerning Biden's alleged wrongdoing in office. If he has a good defense, he could allow his aides to testify and produce the relevant documents. For the second or third time, why how do you reconcile his refusal to do so with your faith in his innocence?





Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

buwaya: These are assertions, not facts...

Be patient with Stephen. He's having a really hard time grasping the distinction.

roesch/voltaire said...

Please note the black ledger was proved mostly accurate based on bank accounts and transfers.

narciso said...

except the part of the money that went to pay podesta and weber for actual lobbying, from the Hapsburg group,

narciso said...

podesta (a long time soviet phile) and weber were allowed to refile their registrations, retroactively) and hence no indictments, funny how that works,

Iman said...

I do see some resemblance to Rundgren. Saw him as part of Ringo's Traveling All Star Band a few years back.

A little OT, but still of interest: https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/

narciso said...

it's rather thorough isn't it,

Balfegor said...

Re: Nonapod:

To me, an impeachable offense would be if Trump clearly demanded that the president of the Ukraine fabricate evidence of wrong doing by Biden (or whomever) whole cloth.

Yeah, that's exactly what Schiff claimed in his opening statement:

I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that.

He hasn't proven it. And I think that's part of impeachment has -- somewhat to my surprise - actually moved the needle in Trump's favour. This was Schiff's best shot. And this is the best he could come up with?

I think the other part of this -- although I don't think it's shown up in Biden's poll numbers so I'm probably wrong -- is that although most of the media and all the Democrats want to just glide over the Hunter Biden situation as though it's 100% above-board and it's a gross breach of decorum even to ask the question, I think to the . . . vanishingly small number of "persuadable" people, once you hear that Biden's son was hired to serve on the board of directors of this shady energy company, and paid very generously for his service, you know exactly what's going on. Obviously these Ukrainians are trying to buy influence with the Vice President of the United States. When an American company does that with the son of a Chinese official, well, that can be a problem. That doesn't mean Biden (or his son!) violated any laws, notwithstanding the video of Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold aid. But it's credibility-sapping to suggest that there was nothing improper or unethical about the arrangement, or glide over it as though it's totally normal, and there's nothing to see there.

And I think that helps Trump, even if it was also improper (if not criminal) for him to use the power of his office to exert a somewhat amorphous pressure on the Ukraine to reopen the Burisma investigation. Once you're in the realm of tu quoque, Trump basically wins because despite his protestations that everything he does is totally correct and legal and ethical, everyone has already "priced in" the fact that he's a New Yorker.

Iman said...

"it's rather thorough isn't it,"

Indeed, it is, narciso.

Skylark said...

"roesch/voltaire said...
Please note the black ledger was proved mostly accurate based on bank accounts and transfers.”

Please note that the DNC emails were authentic. Is it about foreign election interference or not? Is it OK if hurts Trump but wrong if it helped him? What was the Mueller extravaganza about?

Balfegor said...

And here is the video of Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. He doesn't name him in the clip, but the theory is that this is the prosecutor general (Victor Shokin) who was investigating Burisma. Biden claims he got him fired in December 2015; he seems to have been formally removed in March of 2016, and then the Ukraine's investigation into Burisma was closed in January 2017 with what looks like a slap on the wrist (a $7.5 million USD payment of outstanding tax), and no criminal prosecutions, particularly of Zlochevsky, sometime Minister of Ecology for the Ukraine, and Burisma's owner.

The UK Serious Fraud Office also investigated Zlochevsky in 2014-2015 for money laundering, but had to give up, it sounds like, partly because Ukrainian prosecutors didn't provide the SFO with necessary evidence, and in fact, in December 2014 might have provided false evidence in the form of a letter to the effect that Zlochevsky was not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing in the Ukraine, which was not true. SFO had frozen Zlochevsky's assets, but a UK judge ordered them unfrozen in January 2015.

The non-cooperation with the SFO and this fishy letter preceded Shokin's appointment as prosecutor general, which took place in February 2015. Then in March 2015, one of his top deputies apparently claimed on TV that someone in the prosecutor's office had been bribed to help Zlochevsky:

On 8 March 2015, David Sakvarelidze, then Ukraine’s first deputy general prosecutor, appeared on a Ukrainian news programme and made a dramatic accusation – that Ukrainian prosecutors had taken a bribe to help Zlochevsky.

On the other hand, prosecutors friendly to Shokin were apparently caught with jewels that made it look like they had been receiving bribes too, and Shokin quashed investigation into them.

I tend to think that Occam's razor here suggests the obvious: that while there may be different factions within the prosecutors' office in the Ukraine, some pro-Zlochevsky and some anti-Zlochevsky, they are all more or less corrupt. Shokin has since claimed that Poroshenko leaned on him to close the Zlochevsky/Burisma investigations, but he didn't. That sounds credible. Some of his juniors have claimed that actually Shokin wasn't doing anything on Burisma anyway. That sounds credible too.

Biden leaning on the Ukraine to get Shokin fired probably didn't hurt the Burisma investigation, but it also probably didn't help. I don't know enough about the politics of the Ukraine to figure out what faction everyone belongs to, but it's worth noting that both Zlochevsky and Poroshenko (the president of the Ukraine 2014-2019) served together briefly in the cabinet when Yanukovich was still president (they overlapped for a month or so in 2012), so they're not obviously opponents, although they could still be rivals. They're both wealthy oligarchs after all.

The Ukraine has reopened their investigations into Zlochevsky apparently. Eh. We'll see.

YoungHegelian said...

One aspect that seems to get lost in the discussions of the DNC's Exchange server hack & Podesta's email hack was that neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign are federal government entities. They are private, not-for-profit corporations. As such, tampering with their systems is a criminal offense, but it is never a question of national security. Indeed, if the Clinton campaign or the DNC was in possession of classified information, it was they who violated federal law, and not the hackers.

This was the reason that the DNC was under no obligation to call in the FBI, but instead used a private firm, CrowdStrike. The FBI takes a great interest in tracking down hackers, and private firms are encouraged by the Bureau to ask for the Bureau's help. I've worked with the FBI in tracking down hackers for private firms twice (both times the hacker was a disgruntled ex-employee). But, it's just like pressing charges in general --- ya don't gotta do it if ya don't wanna.

In retrospect, I think the DNC not calling in the FBI to work with CrowdStrike was, at best, a yuuuge PR blunder. I also tend to agree with the VIPS Groups report that it was an inside job.

Michael McNeil said...

If Hillary won, gas would be $6 plus in California. The same California that has gobs of oil just off its shores.

Not just offshore. Inland in California the Monterey Formation in Monterey County contains an estimated 38 billion barrels of frackable oil — but fracking is forbidden in the county.

Josephbleau said...

I don't really care about this or New York shale plays, lots of coal in Kentucky waits it's turn for extraction, like California oil, when need arises and palms are greased.

Birkel said...

You want corruption?
Some day people will look into the banking issues from 2008.
And they will find corruption on a scale most of you cannot fathom.
Tyrannical behavior by all those establishment GOP apparatchiks.
Direct, obvious, open contempt for private property rights.
Threats to business people and businesses.

And they even invented - yes, INVENTED - a legal privilege known as "Banker's privilege" to restrict discovery of the evidence.
No court has yet recognized the privilege.
The feds just asserted FOIA cannot be enforced against itself.
And by feds I mean the Federal Reserve Bank.

And that generated $800 billion extra spending for the last 12 fiscal years.
Or a cool TEN TRILLION.

Even buwaya would be surprised at the scale of corruption.

Skylark said...

If the question is about state of mind of Trump, clearly he had reason to believe that he was acting in the national interest re election interference in 2016. It’s not even a question.

buwaya said...

Good morning! Well, here it is morning.
Spanish coffee is - interesting.
Not good I have to say. Its worse even than Filipino coffee.
It is meant to go with a LOT of sugar to make it palatable.
But sugar is out in my case.

You cannot surprise me with the extent of US corruption Birkel.
It is one of those staggering, extra human numbers beyond mans capacity to grok.
Comparable to the scale of cosmic structures.