November 16, 2019

"How a CIA analyst, triggered by Trump's shadow foreign policy, alarmed an impeachment inquiry " — a misread headline.

Misread by Meade, looking at the WaPo headline, "How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump's shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry."

Meade says, "I think it's more accurate my way."

64 comments:

donald said...

It is impossible for any president to have a shadow foreign policy.

Hanging is too good for these people.

Wince said...

Sharyl Attikisson nails it.

The president, not diplomats, sets 'official foreign policy'

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor both accused President Trump of interfering with U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine. They indicated they differed with Trump’s skepticism of Ukraine’s newest leadership, and they disagreed with Trump’s apparent decision to keep Ukraine at a measured distance while he assessed the situation.

They further said that Trump gave approval for his attorney and adviser, Rudy Giuliani, to develop a communications channel on Ukraine diplomacy that was outside the “regular” diplomatic chain. Some in the media have dubbed that a “shadow campaign.”

Kent and Taylor strongly disapproved.

“Kent and Taylor … gave compelling testimony about why [President Trump’s] ‘shadow campaign’ was so at odds with America’s official foreign policy,” wrote Rolling Stone.

The Huffington Post wrote, “State Department officials say Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy backchannel ‘undercut’ U.S. policy on Ukraine.”

And Ambassador Taylor testified, “The official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Rudy Giuliani.”

There must be some confusion.

Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?

President Trump may well have been altering foreign policy on Ukraine. It should be of no surprise that he wasn’t operating “business as usual,” since he ran on that platform and has executed it from day one. It’s clear that Kent and Taylor didn’t like or agree with Trump’s ideas, and believe they know what’s best. Trump rankled, contradicted and “embarrassed” them by operating outside the “regular” chain.

But they seem to miss the fact that their desires are subordinate to the president’s. “Official foreign policy,” as they called it, is not an independent unmovable-force object that exists outside the president’s authority; it is what the president determines it to be. The diplomats must execute the president’s wishes or resign from their posts if they feel they cannot bring themselves to do so.

Kent and Taylor genuinely seem to believe Trump was acting for his own political benefit — though they acknowledged they never had spoken to him or met him. Obviously, President Trump would say he was acting in the national interest. But their testimony makes it pretty clear why President Trump would develop a communications chain that would attempt to minimize career diplomats who do not wish to execute his wishes and may be working to undermine them.

Trump’s enemies may cheer on the idea of diplomats and other officials choosing to oppose or undermine his wishes. But based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats are the ones who are at odds with “official foreign policy”— not the other way around. To the extent they are attempting to further policies that oppose or undermine the president’s wishes, they are the ones conducting the “shadow campaign.”

Matt Sablan said...

"Over the past three months, the allegations made in that document have been overwhelmingly substantiated —"

-- Wait, have they? I thought most of the witnesses have said there was no linkage and that they didn't hear the things this guy claims.

Sprezzatura said...

Meade is in his big J mode today.

Memories of his covering the lib protests of Madtown. Once a journalist for the ‘Murica always a .....

chuck said...

Impeachment is so yesterday.

Matt Sablan said...

... This article reads terribly. For example: "To advance this hidden agenda, Trump and his allies orchestrated the ouster of a U.S. ambassador-"

Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. They did not need to "orchestrate" anything.

gilbar said...

they were talking on The View, about how there were "Two Channels"
The "Real" Channel, that of appointed bureaucrats
and "THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT", that of the President of the United States, and his people

let's review!
1st, the WAS NO deep state, and it was CRAZY to think there was
2nd, the deep state was trying to Protect us!
3rd, the deep state IS THE REAL GOVERNMENT and the President represents the Shadow Government

does this bother anyone else?

Matt Sablan said...

This isn't journalism, it is advocacy. Also: "Trump has waged a campaign to impugn the motives of the whistleblower, attacking him more than 50 times on Twitter and demanding that his identity be exposed."

It should be. He made claims and accused someone of a crime; in America, you get to face your accuser. If he won't reveal himself, then there is no claim.

Narayanan said...

It has always been possible for any president to have a shadow foreign policy.

But Trump is too bright a Sun to leave anything in shadows.

And that's the problem.

Matt Sablan said...

"Republican lawmakers sought to halt the proceedings and force the whistleblower to appear."

-- Imagine any other trial where no one steps forward to actually make the claims. I suppose you could say Schiff is the plaintiff/prosecutor, so we don't need the whistleblower. But... that's fine, I guess. But... now you have no *facts.*

Honestly, the "lone guy in his basement piecing together bits of facts that expose a conspiracy" is the exact same narrative that got us the Comet Ping Pong/pizza nonsense.

Matt Sablan said...

Also: Trump may not feel the need to impugn the motive of the whistleblower if nearly everyone who has accused Trump of things -- like Comey, for example -- didn't turn out to have impure motives. Trump may not be the brightest person in the world, but as a human being, he is still good at pattern recognition.

Again: I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but he's acting perfectly rationally in demanding a chance to actually defend himself from criminal accusations and assuming that people who avoided the proper whistleblower channels to coordinate directly with his political opponents may have impure motives.

Matt Sablan said...

"None of its core contentions has been substantially discredited in the six weeks since"

-- Again: Hasn't nearly every witness acknowledged there was no linkage, and didn't at least one witness (the ambassador yesterday) even acknowledge they had no knowledge of the events in question?

Have any of the contentions been substantially CREDITED?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

It's the nightmare deep state corrupt bureaucracy that IS the shadow government
DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS. or at the hands of corrupt d-state.

Fandor said...

REMEMBER Henry Hopkins? FDR's friend, advisor and tenant of the White House. He was called FDR's "chief diplomatic troubleshooter". He had no offical capacity but met with the likes of Churchill and STALIN represent the president.
Seems to me Rudy may be to Trump what Henry was to FDR.
Comments?

Matt Sablan said...

"It’s clear that Kent and Taylor didn’t like or agree with Trump’s ideas, and believe they know what’s best."

-- Plenty of people have resigned rather than work with Trump. That door is open to them if they don't want to pursue the country's official foreign policy.

gilbar said...

i just finished reading Dan Carlin's book The End Is Always Near

he was talking about JFK, and HIS advisors
Dan wrote that JFK's advisors didn't trust him, 'cause he was just some young playboy
and JFK didn't trust THEM, 'cause they were all nuke happy warmongers

And Dan went On and On (and On and On and On) about how LUCKY the world was, that the young playboy didn't listen to advise of his senior, professional advisors

imagine how Our Beloved Professor (and the rest) would have thought;
if Curtis Lemay announced that He had discovered that JFK was using a SHADOW Foreign policy to try to ALLOW soviet ballistic missiles in Cuba...
And that, THEREFORE; IMPEACHMENT proceedings would commence

Matt Sablan said...

"Seems to me Rudy may be to Trump what Henry was to FDR."

-- Most administrations have people who do that. Because unofficial channels have the ability to talk more freely, and also, are often hand-picked by the president without needing to worry about politics. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't plenty of 'unofficial' diplomats.

narciso said...

They feel their prorogative, of covering for burisma, was overriden.

Anonymous said...

"How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump's interference with the shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry."

FTFT.

Fandor said...

Correction: HARRY HOPKINS representing FDR as "chief diplomatic troublershooter".
It's early. Just had coffee but everyone already has my blood boiling.
Mr. President, DRAIN THIS SWAMP!

narciso said...

Context, lacking from the paper



https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1195694691758592001

Amadeus 48 said...

I think the Dems believe they have to do this, even though this whole controversy should be a campaign hoo-ha that the press would love and would never really put away. Instead, the Dems haul out a .45 and try to blast their way into Comet Ping Pong Pizza. They'll get to the bottom of this. And Adam Schiff, a proven liar and smear merchant (see his Intelligence Committee performance re: "collusion" evidence), is just the man to lend credibility and gravitas to this operation. Is that a good plan?

Yup. They are crazy.

narciso said...


If you set the clock in august, of course it doesnt make sense.


https://mobile.twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1195496357559185409

Anonymous said...

donald: It is impossible for any president to have a shadow foreign policy.

I could see how it's possible. A president could be running his real foreign policy out of the light, while having a "public" foreign policy, to which he always pays lip service as he expresses consternation when it is frustrated by bad actors.

Perhaps not technically precise re "shadow" in government-speak, but good enough for fuzzy-talk.

narciso said...

Sound and fury signifying nothing:



https://mobile.twitter.com/FDRLST/status/1195466337923010563

narciso said...



Whose agenda are they serving really:


https://mobile.twitter.com/glennbeck/status/1195225575356588033

Big Mike said...

Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. They did not need to "orchestrate" anything.

My recollection is that Barack Obama and his Secretary of State (that would be Hillary Clinton) fired every single ambassador when he took office in 2009. Every. Single. One.

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger Matt Sablan said...

"This isn't journalism, it is advocacy."

Advocacy? More like hateful lies and slander.

Big Mike said...

It’s the CIA that operates in the shadows. Not the President.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Doesn't every US president swear an oath to serve and protect Ukraine?

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Remember this gem from the "Fake But Accurate" crowd?

Tom Foley (D) House Speaker, said: "Even though there is no evidence, the seriousness of the charge is what matters."

We now have "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"

How Liberals, alarmed by reality, trigger an alternate, ersatz narrative

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Doesn't every US president swear an oath to serve and protect Ukraine?

narciso said...

Ah yes the october surprise,

Francisco D said...

The purpose of this whole production is to give leftist journalists (i.e., the propaganda arm of the Democrat party) something to write and talk about. That something, of course, is how terrible Donald Trump is in exercising his constitutional powers as POTUS.

It is terrible because he isn't really POTUS. Hillary won the popular vote.

Anonymous said...

Matt Sablan: Plenty of people have resigned rather than work with Trump.

That's what honorable people do.

Even in a resignation letter, any necessary references to one's own patriotism or sense of honor require restraint and humility to carry off. There is no correct way to blab about them after getting sacked or caught deliberately frustrating your superior's orders.

narciso said...

Now this is the third or fourth time theyve done this, whenever liberals policy preferences are threatened.

Michael K said...

Somebody should read "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan"

In forming his perceptions of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan had a friend—a well-dressed, attractive, Russian-speaking, fifty-year-old woman whose ideas about what was happening in Moscow and Leningrad made a bigger impression upon the president of the United States than the reporting and analysis of the Central Intelligence Agency. Her name was Suzanne Massie. She was a writer and author, not an established Soviet scholar. She first met the president on January 17, 1984, when National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane brought her into the Oval Office to give Reagan a report on a recent visit to the Soviet Union. They hit it off immediately.

Bob Boyd said...

Trump wasn't sneaking around in the shadows. There were 17 other people listening on the call.

buwaya said...

The Comet Ping Pong thing is very suspicious. The person behind it, Alefantis, was very well connected and was acknowledged in public to have a great deal of unofficial political influence. Since this was influence that worked through a rather sleazy subculture there is a great deal of smoke around that person.

Conspiracies are the normal way of doing business in these cases - all cases. This is not unique to corrupt or decadent systems, it is simply the way of the world.

Open political/governance systems are a fantasy, more fictional than any conspiracy theory, no matter the sanity of their proponents. At least the mad conspiracists acknowledge that they do not know, and cannot know for certain, however much they suspect. The illusion of understanding is an idea the entertainment or edu-tainment media has liked to sell for centuries, but it is as much a made up narrative as witches and fairies. Or more so probably.

We the groundlings simply cannot see what is being argued about, or the true state of power plays, or the factors that matter, or the actual goals of the game. We see, mainly, only that which the players let us see. And this has been so since day the first Mesopotamian Priest-King formed his court.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

This nonsense about a “shadow foreign policy” reminds me of the UK Shadow Cabinet, with officials called Shadow Secretary, Shadow Lord President, and Shadow Lord Chancellor ( actually, that last one may be a Star Wars character, not sure), except that the Cabinet is actually just the opposition party in its proper function, comprised of elected members of Parliament, and not entrenched alphabet agency apparatchiks.

This is no mere coincidence. Leftists want to reduce the Trump administration to the level of a minority party subordinate to the Dems and the Derp State.

narciso said...

Ask louise mench whose screeds were given legitimacy by the times.

Bruce Hayden said...

"How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump's interference with the shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry."

Or, maybe explained more accurately, how the corrupt former CIA Director, as the Department of Justice readied indictments for his crimes, struck back at the President that he had sought to destroy.

Never forget that the “whistleblower” had a lot of close connections in the Obama Administration, including VP Biden, but none as close as his relationship with disgraced corrupt former CIA Director Brennan. He just can’t keep himself in recent weeks from gloating in public. He warned Trump that the IC in general, and the CIA in particular, would destroy him, if he didn’t back off. Trump didn’t, and this is Brennan’s response.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Matt Sablan said...
"Over the past three months, the allegations made in that document have been overwhelmingly substantiated —"
-- Wait, have they? I thought most of the witnesses have said there was no linkage and that they didn't hear the things this guy claims.


This has been going on for three year, 'Much of the Steele dossier has been corroborated', 'There is no evidence Biden did anything wrong'. They just make shit up. This is propaganda, not journalism.

Mark said...

The president, to whom all foreign policy is given by the Constitution, by definition cannot have a "shadow foreign policy." Once again we see the Dems try to flip what they are doing (shadow government, i.e. Deep State) and accuse their enemies of it.

rcocean said...

SO when are we going to hear from Eric Ciarmella the whistle-blower that Lt Col Vinemann leaked confidential secrets to?

Mark said...

Going over to the Washington Post site and seeing the whole headline and teaser, the bigger issue is how the Post essentially outs complainant Eric Ciarmella in its zeal to attack Trump for not going along with this false pretense and instead speaking openly about what everyone already knows.

How a lone CIA analyst triggered the inquiry that has engulfed U.S. politics

Dozens of senior officials were aware of or involved in President Trump's shadow foreign policy on Ukraine. It is not clear whether any of it would have come to light were it not for a memo from a relatively junior CIA employee, who is now the target of almost daily attacks by Trump and right-wing efforts to make his identity widely public.

narciso said...

well conspiracy, is looked down on, so confluence of interests, most of these deep state players like taylor, have a certain mindset, a certain way of doing things, his record isn't particularly encouraging, from Afghanistan to north Africa,

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

wait- did someone say "Pizzagate" ?

are there still these crazy notions of "elite pedophile rings"?

...asking on behalf a guy who didnt kill himself

narciso said...

nxim Epstein, and there was a new one they uncovered in up state new York,

mockturtle said...

I would even pare down Meade's more accurate statement to "How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump, triggered an impeachment inquiry."

narciso said...

drop this in here:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/the-week-in-pictures-hearsay-edition.php

Sebastian said...

"How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump's interference with the shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry."

"How a CIA "analyst," triggered by Trump, triggered a show trial."

narciso said...


speaking truth from the left,

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/aaron-mate-the-brennan-dossier.php

Yancey Ward said...

What is really clear is that Schiff will have to bring Ciaramella forward, or this is going nowhere with the public.

Earnest Prole said...

Mickey Kaus’ short, powerful take on the unattractive anti-democratic aspect of the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy.

YoungHegelian said...

Guys, understand what the Left is doing here --- they are not stating "facts". They are "controlling the discourse". They're not just lying or being stoopid. They are actively working towards a goal (tearing down Trump so that they can win in 2020) using the tools of Post-Modernism.

Of course, historically & constitutionally, there is no thing as a "shadow foreign policy". It is a shadow foreign policy because it is the Trump administration conducting it. Just like under the Marxists, the bourgeoisie could do no right & the proletariat no wrong, so, now, for the Post-Marxists, the Woke can do no wrong & the UnWoke can do no right.

It's a fact that the President can fire an ambassador at will. Obama fired all of them from the Bush years. That doesn't matter. When a Dem is office, it'll be a president's prerogative to staff embassies as he sees fit. For a Republican, it's fascism.

It's just like the Soviet Party Line. It twists & careens & to the outsider makes absolutely no sense. That's because it isn't suppose to make sense. It is not a history or a science lesson. The Party Line is a strong & flexible weapon in the struggle against the forces of counter-revolution.

narciso said...

yes we have familiarity with the dialectic, that's why I've gone back to the Reagan administration, to see how it's done,

John henry said...

Gilbar,

I am a huge fan of Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. And a financial supporter. Just finished relistening to eps 1&2 on the pacific war in preparing to listen to ep3 (5 hrs)

I didn't know he'd written a book. Just downloaded the sample.

I've long thought he should transcribe the podcasts and publish them as books.

Thanks for mentioning it. I look forward to reading it.

John Henry

John henry said...

Everyone keeps talking about the ambassador being fired.

She was not fired. She was removed from a post. She is still collecting a paycheck from state dept. Stilling the same grade.

I am not clear if she is also collecting a paucity from georgetown U.

John Henry

Nichevo said...

Why isn't she fired? They should all be fired. I don't want to pay their salaries with my taxes.

mockturtle said...

Off with their heads!

narciso said...

ahe's probably got the prince talal chair or some such


https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1195759261298675718

narciso said...


It bears repeating

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/12/obama-national-security-council-detailees-led-trum/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Kirk Parker said...

"Henry Hopkins... Comments?"

It's Different When We Do It™!