« Canned Soup | Main | Experience Saudi Arabia! Don't do it... »

26 September 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It is starting to appear that foreign policy under Obama and the Democrats was simply a government sponsored money laundering operation. The gig being that a certain percentage of the money the US and other governments gave to Ukraine was then sent back to Democratic/Liberal supporters in the form of salaries or contracts. I would imagine most NGO's who support Democratic or Liberal governments are in part funded this way, they then in turn use the money to support their re election efforts. I would imagine the reason the Democrats are holding up many of Trump's nominations for embassy positions is that much of this was run through those offices.

I suppose this is how AIPAC has become such a force in American politics, money sent to support Isreal is sent back through contracts and salaries and other assorted shenanigans. This has been going on for over 50 years, no wonder they are so entrenched in the US government policy machine.

I could not figure out why Canada's current PM Trudeau, given his fathers penchant not to involve Canada in any foreign disputes, especially those the US was involved with, was so eager to get involved in the Ukraine. Of course its obvious now why he appointed Freeland who is of Ukranian background to the position of Minister of foreign affairs. They both have ties to the Atlantic Council and other NGO's who are associated with Ukraine in some fashion. The allegation being that the Liberal party has in part been funding its re-election bid with some of the money sent to Ukraine and funneled back the Biden way. Of course it will never be investigated properly up here as both the senior management of the RCMP, the judicial system and the media are full of liberal appointed or promoted hacks.

I would imagine that it goes further than the Ukraine as well, in fact any country that the US provides aid to has to be under suspicion. I always wondered why the Dutch and the Australian's were so interested in the Ukraine and the airliner that was shot down, bet this goes much deeper than we have been allowed to see so far.

a lurker

You should post this under Dreher`s "Trump Is The Deep State" dribble he posted yesterday.


Time for the classic Ronald Reagan face down of the Democrat politics of personal destruction smear machine .......".aw shucks, there you go again".

And with that, Reagan ended and closed down the assaults. Time to get our of the weeds the Democrats keep planting that are keeping far too many of us on the defensive. Just tell them ...aw shucks, there you go again.

Their modus operandi is established, their intent is confirmed, they just switch out body parts now hoping there is an Achillies heel in there somewhere.


Why isn't Schiff getting called as an Italian-hating racist after his malignant use of an outdated cultural stereotype.


Swalwell and at least half the squad are too stupid to even be Marxists. Nevertheless they are a serious threat.

And though far from perfect, Trump still deserves support. The opposition is grinding not only him but the public down, day by day. They make people long for "normal" politics to return. It is almost unbearable. But we must stay in the game, or they win.


I am in awe. It will take weeks for anyone in the press to catch up to you. Well done!


Now that's an interesting re-direction of focus, TTG.

But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?"
Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes?

By what right, based on rule of law and principles of UN Charter that proscribe a nation's involvement in the domestic affairs of another nation, does the US presume to " root out some of the corruption rampant in the Ukrainian government?"


It doesn't have to be a crime to be relevant in the context of the 2016 and 2020 elections. If we are so easily confused as to what has actually been going on Ukraine, that both parties are hopelessly smeared in the scent of corruption and failure, what exactly are we doing there? Why are we giving them billions?

And if you are not convinced that $50k a month in pay off for a do-nothing connected American board member is actually a crime, what do you make about the $1.5B from the Bank of China? Is that also excusable?

You are free to loathe Trump, but right now the very fabric of our Constitution is at stake and Trump is not the only pouring kerosene on it.


There's an interesting piece in Frontpage this morning about this very issue. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/09/trump-urging-ukrainian-probe-biden-breaks-no-laws-matthew-vadum/

Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause).

I'd be interested in what others make of this.


Thank you. This really is the most fascinating thread I've seen in recent memory.


I'd like to see a serious conversation between Tim Ryan & Tulsi Gabbard.
It's apparent the PTB do not like him -- he gets 0 airtime or mention, which suggests to me that he might have some things to say that are meaningful to the Great Unwashed.

He is from RustBelt Ohio and is more interested in jobs & redevelopment of communities than in Culture Wars.

Sure would like to see Ryan either come from behind -- while, um, recalibrating his tune on FP, or,
with the knowledge that he can't win, out-Tulsi Tulsi in criticism of USA's Israel first policy.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."


I believe this was a running joke for a season on "Veep." It was a pretty funny one, but if you are right it was all too true (hence as funny as Schiff's "parody").

LA Sox Fan

Hearsay is any statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It can be confusing. For example. Assume I was in an automobile accident. Moments after the accident, I said to the other driver “You ran the red light.” In court, a witness who heard my statement cannot testify about it if that testimony is being used to prove the other party ran the red light. The matter being asserted is the other driver ran the red light. The witness is testifying to prove the light was red. It is a hearsay statement.

However, if I were claiming to have been knocked unconscious for a week by the accident, my “You ran the red light” statement would not be hearsay if the same witness was testifying to prove I was conscious after the accident. Here, the statement is not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (The other driver ran a red light) but to show I wasn’t knocked unconscious by the accident.

There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule which would takes about 3-weeks of a law school evidence class to explain. I don’t have the time..

Here, the so-called whistleblower is claiming that others told him what was said during the call. That is hearsay, (a statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, aka-what was said is true.) If he heard to call himself, it wouldn’t be hearsay as to what he heard. If he read the transcript, then him testifying about what he read would not be hearsay either.


You may want to read this, including the linked documents, and rethink your comment

Keith Harbaugh

Here are links to six John Solomon columns dealing with the Bidens and Ukraine:
2019-09-26 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
2019-09-23 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections
2019-05-16 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444167-ukrainian-who-meddled-against-trump-in-2016-is-now-under-russia
2019-04-25 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/440730-how-the-obama-white-house-engaged-ukraine-to-give-russia-collusion
2019-04-07 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats
2019-04-01 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

Let me also add some thoughts of my own:

0) I have carefully read the 2019-08-25 "urgent concern" of the Complainant.
It is a carefully-written, very-well-documented account of what its author believes are, essentially, impeachable offenses.
It is in fact quite useful, giving such a good account of one view of things.
It is a big, big mistake to attack it merely on the grounds that it is reporting things other people have said, i.e., "hearsay".
Such attacks, while true, do not detract from its argument.
There are, however, several other ways to attack its argument.

1) First, he is clearly giving only one side of things.
It is crucial to obtain a balanced, more accurate, view of things by giving the other side of the argument, as John Solomon does in what is linked to above.
Hopefully other countervailing views can be expressed.

2) Point out flaws in his reporting, as LJ has done so well above.

3) Ask the question "So what?"
The writer, and practically all of the media I have read, essentially assumes the equation:
"US national security" = "Preventing Russian domination of Ukraine".
My view: This is not merely wrong, but insane.
What on earth does US national security have to do with the territorial boundaries or geopolitical orientation of Ukraine?
Look, in the 1970s I was very involved with supporting US national security.
What did that mean back then?
It meant, for example, preventing West Germany, with its vast industrial and scientific capabilities, from becoming part of the Communist block.
That would really have changed the geopolitical balance between "The First World" and "The Second World", to use terminology in use back then.
Does anyone really believe that Russian domination of the Ukraine would have the same effect on geopolitics as the USSR controlling the FRG (i.e., West Germany).
Ukraine is not West Germany.
As I said, that is really insane.
Yet we see both reporters and columnists in, for example, the Washington Post claiming the Ukraine is vital to the U.S. national interest.
See, for example this ludicrously overwrought recent David Ignatius column:
"Trump compromised our security for his gain.".
"Compromised our security"? Please, David.

4) On the corruption issue:
Think about it. If Hunter Biden's last name had been Smith, and he, even with the work and educational background that he did have,
(see this article for an extremely detailed, 27-page, examination of that)
had been just the son of some nondescript middle-manager in America. would he EVER have been have been put on the Board of Directors of Burisma?
Never in a million years.
So the only reason he was put there was because of the position of his father, Joe Biden.
Now ask another question:
Assume that the Obama administration had valid reasons for wanting the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin.
Why was Joe Biden given the job of pressuring for that dismissal?
Why not, say, SecState John Kerry?
Or some other member of the administration.
Maybe even Obama himself.
Why was Joe given that job? Especially considering the connection between his son and Burisma, which was generally considered part of the Ukraine corruption mess.
So why on earth didn't Joe say,
"Sorry, I have a family connection there. Better have someone else put the pressure on."?
Evidently WaPo and most of the rest of the media doesn't see a problem there, but it is very strange that they do not see the problem.

5) One final point: The "dirty" point.
The media is playing a word game, by consistently, and I mean really consistently, describing any effort to examine and publicize the issues Solomon raised above as
"Dirt", as in "digging up dirt".
Why prejudice the effort to shed some sunlight on such issues as "digging for dirt".
After all WaPo's motto is "Democracy dies in darkness".
So why call the effort to shine some light on the Biden/Ukraine connection as "digging for dirt"?
The hypocrisy is plain for me to see, if not for the people at WaPo.

6) And one afterthought:
On the identity of the "Whistle-blower", sundance makes a guess here:
"“Gossip-blower” is Male CIA Operative Formerly Part of White House NSC…",
namely Michael Barry.
I have no idea if that is true, merely passing on sundance's thoughts.

blue peacock


My question is why this Ukraine brouhaha NOW? The timing of why the media wurlitzer is spun is always interesting to me.

Trump's call with Zelensky took place in July just after Mueller published his report. Trump suspects that folks in Ukraine may have information regarding Crowdstrike and the DNC server "hacking". So it is a legitimate request IMO considering attacks on him, his kids and his administration around Russia Collusion. The whistleblower made his complaint now. Why? Who actually wrote the complaint as Robert Willmann notes in an earlier thread it was likely a lawyer. It seems it was coordinated with the House Democrats and the MSM as they both latched on to it with similar talking points immediately in a highly coordinated manner.

My speculation is that they didn't count on Trump immediately declassifying and releasing it to the public and further going on the attack along with Rudy to paint Biden and his son in the vortex of potential corruption.

Now we are back to he said, she said and the usual confusion. It would be good to read opinions on what was the goal here as the bar to an impeachment conviction is very high. No President in the history of our country has been convicted by the Senate. What were the political motives for the Russia Collusion redux with this Ukraine "quid pro quo"?

blue peacock


Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties.

Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?

Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know.

Diana C

That is a very good question. The Italians have a right to claim they are also victims of racism.


Why now? The Kavanaugh smear fell apart. This was the next Trump "scandal" on the Democrat's Roladex. There will be more until Nov 2020, and there after. We know this now, so no cause for alarm. Even Saul Alinksy warned about over-playing your hand. Democrats have over-played their hand.


K, you might want to stick with the actual language, instead of your odd interpretation stating the US is "required to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice".

Here is the treaty language from your link:
Article 1 that “[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.”

blue peacock

Since the public have access to the transcript now the questions then becomes was Trump's request inappropriate during the call, was there a quid pro quo, are any of the assertions by the whistleblower accurate, was this a legitimate complaint or was it a political statement to gin up controversy?


Australia is interested because 27 nationals were killed on MH17.


This is creating an opening for Hilary to run again.


I absolutely agree Factotum! This is just the latest chapter in the continuing saga, Impeachment Zombies.

Barbara Ann

Sundance thinks Lawfare wrote it. The 'whistleblower' is simply the delivery platform for their latest weapon. Given the legalistic style, their involvement in Russiagate and the similar modus operandi this seems a reasonable guess. Lawfare themselves (who are clearly Resistance central) are already trumpeting success.


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad