Ukraine, Trump, Biden — The Real Story Behind “Ukrainegate”
IN FOUR PARTS
Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
PART ONE: TRUMP’S 25 JULY 2019 PHONE-CALL TO ZELENSKY
Since this news-report is going to be especially harsh regarding today’s Democratic Party in the United States, readers should be aware that until that Party nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016, this writer was, and consistently voted as, a Democrat, and that I have never been, and never could be, a Republican. In no way does this article reflect a Republican viewpoint. It is not partisan — not favoring one person’s viewpoint over any other’s. (Though it does favor trustworthy evidence over untrustworthy hearsay and witnesses, etc.) This article is written by a consistent progressive, which means a person whose top value is truth, nothing else than 100% honesty and reflecting only personally verified sources, real facts. Intense care has therefore been taken in checking and cross-checking and validating information before accepting here anything as constituting information instead of as being disinformation (which is sadly rampant). The following article is written only because it reports what my own independent researches have found to be the actual case regarding what is now commonly called “Ukrainegate” (the focus of the impeachment-proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump).
The ‘news’-media and the Democrats have been grossly misrepresenting what the “Ukrainegate” narrative and the impeachment proceedings against the current U.S. President are all about; and, as a result of this widespread misinformation, ABC News headlined on November 18th, “70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL”, and reported that “32%, say they made up their minds about impeaching the president before the news broke about Trump’s July phone-call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.” This poll found that 100% of the 506 scientifically sampled respondents had heard at least some of the impeachment hearings, and that 51% of them agreed with the statement, “President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate,” while 6% agreed instead with “President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House but NOT removed from office by the Senate.” 25% agreed instead with “President Trump’s actions were NOT wrong.”
However, far more was actually involved in this phone-call than allegations against the Bidens; and those allegations regarding the Bidens have themselves been grossly misrepresented in the press, as this article will show, and will document in its links to the actual and most trustworthy evidence in the case. (Of course, the very best evidence is the call itself, and that will therefore be the first thing linked to and discussed here.)
Furthermore, the American public should have been far more skeptical about the Ukrainegate narrative than they were, because, at first, Democrats were trying to use, as their ground on which to impeach Trump — and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being America’s President — Trump’s having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President Trump. Now the Democrats’ ground, for replacing President Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence, is that in Trump’s 25 July 2019 phone-call to Ukraine’s new President Volodmyr Zelensky, Trump supposedly pressured Zelensky to have Joe Biden investigated.
One of the first signs of a liar is that the person switches his story — changes to a new and different reason for ‘justifying’ his actions (in this case, impeachment) — and this clearly is being done now by the Democrats and the ‘news’-media, in order to replace President Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence. Consequently: Americans are insufficiently suspicious against the present impeachment hearings. Americans need to examine carefully beyond the mere surface — much deeper. The links here are provided in order to facilitate the reader’s direct access to the highest quality (i.e., most trustworthy) evidence in the case, so that the reader may see, on one’s own, what the ‘news’-media do not report.
25 September 2019 was when a clear and copyable version of the transcript of that complete July 25th phone conversation finally became published, online, by Rhode Island’s Providence Journal; and here is the only passage in the complete transcript where Trump mentioned Biden (three times, in fact — the only three times that the word “Biden” appears in the entire transcript):
Rudy [Giuliani] very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador [to Ukraine] from the United States, the woman [Marie Yovanovitch], was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the [U.S.] Attorney General [William Barr] would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.
What “prosecution,” of whom, for what, and why? The media ignore those questions. when they aren’t simply assuming an answer to them. But no such answer ought to be assumed. Nor should these important questions be ignored. Here, the answers to those questions will be documented.
Furthermore, elsewhere in that conversation, Trump said:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people. The server, they say Ukraine has it.
Zelensky responded by asserting that “the next prosecutor general [in Ukraine] will be 100% my person” and that “he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company [Crowdstrike] that you mentioned in this issue.” Nothing at all was said by Zelensky about any Biden, at any point in the entire phone-call. It wasn’t mainly about the Bidens such as the press alleges to be the case.
In fact: the “favor” that Trump was asking about wasn’t concerning the Bidens, but it instead concerned the investigation that Trump’s Attorney General (referenced here when Trump said “whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great”) is now heading, into the question of why Obama’s FBI and entire intelligence community had proceeded with the highly suspect Christopher Steele and Crowdstrike report that the Democratic National Committee had hired under Obama in order to come up with allegations to use against Trump, and why the Obama Administration never demanded to inspect the DNC’s own server in order to examine the key physical evidence in the alleged Russiagate case against Trump — much less, what testimony and evidence Julian Assange might have in the alleged Russiagate case. What did Trump mean when he said “The server, they say Ukraine has it”? Did Trump actually think that Zelensky could supply that physical evidence? What did he mean? What was he asking of Zelensky when Trump said, “The server, they say Ukraine has it”?
One can’t understand the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump unless one understands accurately what was happening in Ukraine and what the motivations were of the persons who were involved in U.S.-Ukraine policy, first under U.S. President Barack Obama, and then under his successor Donald Trump. Information will be presented here, about those matters, which probably won’t come up in the House impeachment hearings. These matters are likelier to be publicly discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too ‘sensitive’ to be brought up even there — especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February 2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine’s democratically elected Government, and — if that happened, as we will show it did — how this fact might affect Trump’s relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the ‘news’-media have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public.
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran’s democratically elected Government wasn’t revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a ‘democratic revolution’ in Iran. Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long time, and not only about ‘WMD in Iraq’. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup in Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in the case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying, at deceiving, at manipulating, its public, no less now than it was then. Without understanding the reality of Obama’s coup in Ukraine, there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama’s 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types.
PART TWO: TRUMP’S PURPOSE IN THE 25 JULY 2019 CALL TO ZELENSKY
The argument to be presented here is that Trump, in this phone-call, and generally, was trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the “Crowdstrike” matter (which A.G. Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned “Crowdstrike” at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a “favor” from Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via Obama’s coup and its aftermath). This is a fact, which will be documented here. Far more than politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. Trump was considering a basic change in U.S. foreign policies. He was considering to replace policies that had been established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama. Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes. This is one of the reasons for the renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They don’t want to let go of Obama’s worst policies. But changing U.S. foreign policy is within a President’s Constitutional authority to do.
Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019. This culminated a growing rejection by Trump of neoconservatism — something that he had never thought much about but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in 2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more — possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who likewise was a flaming neocon. Trump’s gradual turn away from neoconservatism wasn’t just political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently still hasn’t yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)
For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, whom Trump had recently (in May 2019) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Democrats presented her as having been the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in America’s foreign service. She was actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W. Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in 2001. Obama appointed her, on 18 May 2016, to replace Geoff Pyatt (shown and heard in this video confidentially receiving instructions from Obama’s agent controlling Ukraine-policy, Victoria Nuland) as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions. Yovanovitch was part of Obama’s team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush’s team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.
A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet, even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama’s standard phrase arguing for it was “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation”, meaning that all other nations are “dispensable.” This imperialistic belief was an extension of Yale’s ‘pacifist’ pro-Nazi America First movement, which was supported by Wall Street’s Dulles brothers in the early 1940s, and which pro-Nazi movement Trump himself has prominently praised. Unlike the progressive U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the U.N. in order to be the anti-imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of nations — a global democratic federation of sovereign republics — neoconservatives are U.S. imperialists, who want instead to destroy the U.N., and to extend American power over the entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the world, and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator. The U.N. would be weakened to insignificance. This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric. Yale’s John Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: U.S. imperialism. Regarding the campaign to take over Russia, however, he no longer does — he has broken with Bolton on that central neoconservative goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme than Obama’s policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact, produced the coup in Ukraine).
When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on as policy on the American imperialists’ side. The neoconservative side, which controlled the U.S. Government by that time (FDR’s vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russia’s sovereignty over its own land, and certainly not over the land of Russia’s neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile border with Russia. Neoconservatives want U.S. missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along Russia’s border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along Canada’s and Mexico’s borders with the U.S.; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but neoconservatives aren’t decent people. Neoconservatives (U.S. imperialists) seek for all of Russia’s neighbors to become part of the U.S. empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become able to gobble it up. All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.
In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on 11 October 2019, Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America’s policies toward Ukraine should be, and these were Obama’s policies, too; these views are the neoconservative outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and lies in this key passage from her]:
Because of Ukraine’s geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to the security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to the security of Russia — it’s a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning, to neoconservatives, under U.S. control], and that it continue to resist Russian expansionism [like Russia cares about U.S. expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere? Really? Is that actually what this is about? It’s about extending U.S. imperialism on and across Russia’s border into Russia itself] Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea [but, actually, “Clear and convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S. Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia’s main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval base.”], its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov, make clear Russia’s malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russia’s determination not to be surrounded by enemies — by U.S.-stooge regimes. For Russia to avoid that is ‘malign’, she says]. If we allow Russia’s actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the United States will regret for decades to come. So, supporting Ukraine’s integration into Europe and combating Russia’ s efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America didn’t do that destabilization?] have anchored our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and demanded to be a part of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before Obama’s takeover of Ukraine in February 2014 didn’t actually want to be part of the EU nor of NATO, and they considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine. “In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean ‘protection of your country,’ 40% said it’s ‘a threat to your country’.”] That was U.S. policy when I became ambassador in August 2016 [after Obama’s successful coup there took over its media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia], and it was reaffirmed as that policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017. [Yes, that’s correct, finally a truthful assertion from her. When Trump first came into office, he was a neoconservative, too.] The Revolution of Dignity [you’ll see here the ‘dignity’ of it] and the Ukrainian people’s demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country’s political and economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before].
That’s just one example — it’s about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch. But the focus of Ukrainegate isn’t really that. It’s not Yovanovitch. It is what Trump was trying to do, and what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done. It is also about Joe Biden’s son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending individuals. Trump isn’t certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged neoconservative, and to continue extending Obama’s neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine. So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama’s policy in Ukraine, a policy of which the Bidens themselves were very much Obama’s agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to continue and extend those policies. Here will be necessary to document some personal and business relationships that the U.S. news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about whether to replace Trump by Pence:
PART THREE: THE CENTRALITY OF UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH IHOR KOLOMOYSKY
The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian Government until Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government, which the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that phone-conversation appointing Ukraine’s new leader is explained here), in what the head of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor has correctly called “the most blatant coup in history.” (Here’s more explanation of that coup which was done by Obama.)
One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against America’s current President Donald Trump (“Ukrainegate”), unless one first knows and understands accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of Ukraine, and the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government (installing it), and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss at Burisma, Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland) had installed Ukraine’s new Government.
As I had written on 28 September 2019, “In order to understand why Ukraine’s President Voldomyr Zelensky doesn’t want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden’s boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky’s boss and benefactor until Zelensky became Ukraine’s President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places.”
That article, at the phrase “dug up in 2012,” discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac) funded by America’s billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup, as well as of Barack Obama’s political career itself) in order to help to bring down Yanukovych. However, what this study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped. It found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovych’s overthrow. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administration’s post-coup Ukrainian Government. Obama’s financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obama’s Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama had just overthrown. Hunter Biden’s function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden was to serve as a U.S. fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunter’s father, Joe Biden, followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky. Soros isn’t really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to take over, and that he uses the U.S. Government in order to take over. Neoconservatism is simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of billionaires. (In America’s case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.) So, it’s just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international relations are imperialists; and, in America, that’s called “neoconservative.” The American issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraine’s corruption. Corruption is standard and accepted throughout the U.S.-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over it becomes a PR point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own country’s imperialism and its own associated corruption. “Our country’s corruption is acceptable, but yours is not,” is the view. That’s the standard imperialist view. Neoconservatism — imperialism anywhere, actually — is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot. No patriot is a nationalist. Whereas a nationalist supports his country’s billionaires, a patriot supports his country’s residents — all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights. A nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ. All other nationalists are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than patriots.
Information hasn’t yet been published regarding what Trump’s agent Rudolph Giuliani has found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that I am aware of, and it’s evidence which contradicts what the U.S.-and-allied press have been reporting about the Bidens’ involvement in Ukraine. So: this information might be what Trump’s team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as America’s President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which U.S.-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly contradicting — contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is presented here. Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by America’s press, regarding Ukrainegate.
After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from Moscow, John Helmer, headlined on 19 February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports, “THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II — WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT WASHINGTON DOESN’T WANT TO SEE”, and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government records but also to UK Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma. So, all of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this firm when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false. (See this, for example, from Britain’s Guardian, two years later, on 12 April 2017, simply ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting Zlochevsky — Kolomoysky’s decoy — as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burisma’s alleged corruption.) So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraine’s Government prosecute Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own boss, Barack Obama’s, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych — the Ukrainian President whom Obama had overthrown. This isn’t to say that Yanukovych was not corrupt; every post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt. Ukraine is famous for being corrupt. But, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Zlochevsky was corrupt. However, Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all Ukrainians.
Perhaps Kolomoysky’s major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in Washington for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons’ causes. For example, on 11 March 2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered “Victor Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections” and he reported that
Victor Pinchuk is a Ukrainian billionaire.
He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.
He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
Pinchuk’s been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back up this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies), Liz Zentos (National Security Council), MicEric Zuesse for The Saker Bloghael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain Institute).
Doug Schoen filed FARA documents showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) – in part to arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It is unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal reported how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a political rival of Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATO’s PR agency the Atlantic Council, were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives, and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the “Deep State” is, and praised the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist Government of Ukraine.
On 6 October 2019, Helmer headlined “UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH VICTOR PINCHUK IS PUTTING HIS MONEY ON JOE BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT AT $40,000 PER MONTH – THAT’S $3,000 MORE PER MONTH THAN BURISMA WAS PAYING HUNTER BIDEN”. He reported:
Joe Biden’s campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).
This follows several years of attempts by Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and with John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts failed.
Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount of money is substantially greater than Biden’s son Hunter Biden was paid by Pinchuk’s Ukrainian rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai, Biden’s New York front company.
Pinchuk’s message for the Democratic candidates and US media, according to Schoen’s Fox News  broadcast in August, is: “Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own frontrunner, Joe Biden.”
On November 12th, the New York Times headlined “Ukraine’s President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin” and reported that Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EU’s and Trump Administration’s continuing support for Ukraine’s Government, so that Zelensky is desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia. The next day, that newspaper bannered “A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought Russia. Now He’s Ready to Embrace It.” This report said: “Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine’s most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia.” Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obama’s team in Ukraine, no longer is on the U.S. team under Trump. A reasonable inference would be that Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.
Here are some crimes for which Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, along with the newly appointed Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, masterminded the 2 May 2014 extermination of perhaps hundreds of people who had been trapped inside Odessa’s Trade Unions Building after those victims had distributed anti-coup flyers.
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015, brought to a board meeting of Ukraine’s gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns, in an unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Kolomoysky’s choice to lead the company. Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the pressure from Ukraine’s bondholders to fire Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraine’s biggest bank, PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors’ accounts and secreted the proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraine’s taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.) Zelensky is squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers. For example, on 10 September 2019, the Financial Times reported that “The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbank’s nationalisation would jeopardise its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery of the $5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank.” Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obama’s Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trump’s?
There are others, but those could be starters.
So, both Kolomoysky and Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscow’s protection, though Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.
Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Obama’s entire Ukrainian operation. That, in turn, would expose Obama’s command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation, which Kolomoysky’s co-planner of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov, euphemistically labelled the “Anti Terrorist Operation” or “ATO,” to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych.
It could also open up the enormous can of worms that is George Soros, because though Trump doesn’t at all care about corruption in Ukraine (nor should he, since that’s a Ukrainian domestic matter and therefore not appropriate and certainly not a matter of U.S. national-security interest), Soros himself was quite possibly breaking both national and international laws in his interventions in Ukraine, and possibly also in his related investments or his threats not to invest there. Not only was he deeply involved in the coup but afterward he was regularly advising Victoria Nuland. Whether even America’s laws against insider-trading were violated should also be considered.
PART FOUR: TRUMP’S MANY POLICY-DILEMMAS REGARDING UKRAINE
If Putin offers no helping hand to Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians? Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the “States Parties” to the International Criminal Court, so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown Ukraine’s democratically elected Government could be tried there? How would Trump be able to immunize himself for such crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria? How likely is it that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist (such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law? He, after all, is himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an instance where he benefited from it — never for international law itself. Trump isn’t likely to be the first. But here’s how it could happen:
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives. There’s not much distance between his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s. However, after Trump becomes impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican U.S. Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Trump to embarrass the Democratic Party profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Biden’s boss Obama as having caused the war in Ukraine. In order for him to do that, however, he’d also need to expose the rot of neoconservatism. Nobody in Washington does that, except, perhaps the rebelling Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she’s rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party. Neoconservatism is the uniform foreign-policy ideology of America’s billionaires, both Republican and Democratic, and this is why Washington is virtually 100% neocon. In America, wealth certainly doesn’t trickle down, but ideology apparently does — and that’s not merely neoliberalism but also its international-affairs extension: neoconservatism. Nonetheless, if a Trump re-election ticket were Trump for President, and Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat anything that the Democrats could put up against it, because Trump would then head a ticket which would remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the perhaps 5% of Democrats who like her. Only Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and who is the least-neoconservative member of the U.S. Senate), would attract some of Gabbard’s supporters, but he wouldn’t be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American politics. The 2020 U.S. Presidential contest could just go hog-wild. However, America’s billionaires probably won’t let that happen. Though there are only 607 of therm, they have enormous powers over the Government, far more than do all other Americans put together. The U.S. Supreme Court made it this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision, and the 2010 Citizens United decision.
So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it is extremely unlikely. The public are too deceived — by America’s Big-Money people.
As the neoconservative Democratic Representative from Vermont, Peter Welch, said in the impeachment hearings, on November 19th:
And you know, I’ll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you do, do it. Just don’t do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That’s your job, it’s not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman’s question [“Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?”]. And the second coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy both support, it’s not investigations, it’s the restoration of democracy in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama’s anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine’s Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S. had started), America’s Deep State are refusing to allow that — they want to force him to accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine’s troops in how to use them against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump single-handedly nullified Obama’s only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal. Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump’s biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon. Perhaps Adelson doesn’t require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran’s Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey’s newspaper Yeni Safak, “Bolivia’s Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran’s Mosaddeg”, and he presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too — which had occurred on November 10th — had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine when Trump’s own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won’t publicly expose the crimes of another criminal U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump was America’s Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump’s becoming President, Sondland had had no experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, “four companies registered to Sondland donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee”; and, then, a year later, Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to “bribe” Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes headlined “Gordon Sondland Accuses the President of Bribery” and Wittes asserted that “today, Amb. Gordon Sondland, testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account of how President Trump engaged in bribery.” But Sondland provided no evidence except his opinion, which can be seen online at “Opening Statement before the United States House of Representatives”, when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.
However, in his prior (closed-door) 17 October 2019 testimony to the Senators, he had said (pp. 35-6) that on September 9th:
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times. This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried hard to address Ambassador Taylor’s concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission.”
That “Ambassador Taylor” was William. B. Taylor Jr., a West Point, Army, and NATO neoconservative, whom George W. Bush had made U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine in 2006-9, and whom Trump, at the suggestion of Trump’s neoconservative Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, had appointed to succeed Ambassador Yovanovitch in May.
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of America’s war to conquer Russia. Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy, but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or else America’s for withdrawing America from Obama’s war against Russia) suitable reason for Congress to force Trump out of office. Given that Trump, even in Sondland’s account, did say “The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times,” there is nothing that’s even close to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo about anything regarding Ukraine — a policy of Obama’s that Trump should instead firmly have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn’t simply extended Obama’s neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. But right and wrong won’t determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a country. It produces the type of foreign policies the country’s billionaires want, rather than what the public actually need. This is America’s Government, today. It’s drastically different than what America’s Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of the Electoral College for choosing the Government’s Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote — an aristocracy of wealth controlling the entire Government — exactly what the Founders had waged the Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as constituting our Government, today.
PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings’ Ranking Minority Member, the neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes, stands for, I close here with his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st, in which he validly described the Democrats’ scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look deeper to the issues I raise in this article — he dealt here merely with how “shoddy” the case the Democrats had presented was):
Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It’s clear why the Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread corruption in that country. President Zelensky, who didn’t even know aid to Ukraine had been paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the conversation. The aid was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were supposedly being coerced into doing.
Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses have testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different reasons. So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there’s no actual misdeed and no one even claiming to be a victim? The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple slogan, “he got caught.” President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something wrong and getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought crime the Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It’s not president Trump who got caught, it’s the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack the 2016 election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and lying about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations of the Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise that impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is to the American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians, and they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee operative, who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly redacting her name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her testimony as a witness in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent years. They got caught.
Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President Trump was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and the president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules, today’s hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee, formerly known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political benefit they want from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to this country will be long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president? They have pitted Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually believe the entire galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president since the day the American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so our nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people’s faith in government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let’s hope they finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a change. In addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican members transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key witnesses that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This rule was not displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it applies to the Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly scheduling an agreed upon time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key witnesses that you have continually blocked from testifying.
I’d also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling campaign, the US government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my staff to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of their memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.
Later that same day, the New York Times headlined “The Impeachment Hearings Revealed a Lot — None of It Great for Trump”, and CNN headlined “The public impeachment hearings were a total GOP disaster”. The non-mainstream news-medium Zero Hedge instead bannered, “Amid Impeachment Circus, Dems Sneak PATRIOT Act Renewal Past The American People”, and reported that the “bill was pushed through with not a single Republican vote.” The following day, the AP headlined “Analysis: Mountain of impeachment evidence is beyond dispute” and closed “Asked what the consequences are if Congress allows an American president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival, [Fiona] Hill said simply, ‘It’s a very bad precedent.’”
The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38 countries were asked whether they agree that “You can trust most news most of the time” shows that the United States scores #32 out of the 38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their 2018 edition, that, among Americans, “those who identify on the left (49%) have almost three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the right’s alienation from mainstream media has become ever more entrenched.” In the 2019 edition, what had been 49% in America rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires’ (i.e., mainstream) media are trusted almost only by liberals here. What the media report is considered trustworthy almost only by liberals, in today’s America. By 53% to only 9% — an almost 6 to 1 ratio — the skeptics of the billionaires’ press are Republicans. Of course, if the media are distrusted, then the nation can’t be functioning as a democracy. But the media will be distrusted if they lie as much as America’s do. Untrusted ‘news’-media are a sure indication that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media). In America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to — for examples — Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel); and which ones don’t (such as America’s governmentally-anointed ‘allies’, including some barbaric dictatorships). Liberals trust America’s dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy. Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDR’s vision, of a United Nations which would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the U.S. nor any other country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than it is by the Republican Party. And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obama’s imperialistic (anti-FDR) agenda. Trump, after all, didn’t do the coup to Ukraine; Obama did.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
“PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings’ Ranking Minority Member, the neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes, stands for, I close here with his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st, …”
Standing on the fence and tossing aspersions is no way to convince others of your ideas.
Make one doubt your bona fides.
¿Do you, or do you not want potus to sit as usa’s head?
I hear a “yes”, or rathe an “almost” no.
Thanks Eric, I can see the work you’ve put into this but will have to read once or twice more before it jells in the head.
Dfnslblty, you question is moot. An analyis is just what it is – It makes no never mind what Eric wants and only the ideologues and strawmen argumentators will try to push that point.
Nunes has been so effective that the DNC, the Ukronazis and the fakestream media sewer have concocted a ‘bombshell scandal’ to silence him, too. He supposedly met the Ukrainian Prosecutor whose dismissal Dopey Joe Biden demanded, on camera, guffawing at his own thuggery, or else a billion or whatever would not materialise. That the fakestream sewer simply ignores Biden’s real, public, arrogant ‘quid pro quo’, or, more and more, dismisses it, like all inconvenient facts, as a ‘debunked conspiracy theory created by the Russians’, tells you much about the hallucinatory hypocrisy, mendacity, arrogance and total Groupthink of a cadre of morally insane hysterics. To have to ely on FoxNews for even a semblance of rationality is not a pleasant experience.
Mulga, Fox News is…. rational? Have things become that bad?
Watched about 6 mins of Planet America on ABC – two completely lobotomised Clinton groupies, Barton and that Chaz creature, and they were showing clips from the Trump impeachment hearings, and literally jumping up and down on their seats almost beside themselves with excitement!
They made Rachel Maddow look almost sane in comparison.
One of the clips was from frothing Russophobe Fiona Hill claiming the Russians were going to ‘interfere in our democracy in 2020’ and already ‘had proxy groups in place’!!
Oh, and they had a few words from the very sane Adam Schiff (think… A Clockwork Orange)
Where’s Stephen Cohen when you need him?
The Planet America idiots are typical of the apparatchiki at the ABC, after decades of Howardisation, Murdochisation and intellectual cowardice. The Baron one, if that is its name, so effing arrogant while being either sub-moronic or simply totally brainwashed, is so loathsome, in his smug self-satisfaction, that he’ll surely go places. Fox only has a ‘semblance’ of rationality on this topic alone, otherwise they, too, are barking mad and vicious, but the total groveling subjection of our ‘elites’ to the USA, as it rots from the inside due to intellectual and moral disease is almost funny. And if I see that fat nonentity, Albo, or the suddenly ghastly, Penny Wong, kissing Yankee backsides and outdoing the Libs in hysterical Sinophobic hatred, again, I swear I will projectile vomit from here to Lake Disappointment.
Aaahh, yes Mulga. Indeed it is John Barron, also an Honorary Associate at the United States Studies Centre at the University Of Sydney.
And co host of the risible Planet America.
Our elites are too blind and too driven by pure greedlust to see the collapse has already begun, and the United States is doomed. As is the Empire.
May take a few more years, but whatever the time frame, its already game over.
As a fellow settler, colonial, State that stole a land from its inhabitants by genocide and terror, Austfailia was always bound to throw up ‘elites’ who would identify with the global, White, Western, Bullyboy-in-Chief. We have followed the USA into every one of its aggressions and genocides, but by joining the US Crusade to ‘bring China down’, this pathetic little country has signed its own death warrant. In any case, within a decade or two, vast areas of Indonesia will become uninhabitable due to climate destabilisation, and we will be replaced by slightly more boat people that even Scummo, our Bunyip Bolsonaro, and his ‘God’ can handle. If lucky, they’ll let us keep Tasmania, or it’ll be off to the Land of the Long White Cloud, I would say.
Beautifully picturesque way of expressing the tender sentiments I have been feeling toward my entire estranged country recently, Mulga. The Japanese mumble their agreement with the latest insane ravings of the Empire, being subject to the gently persuasive tactics of the CIA as they are, but at least everyone knows they don’t mean it.
How the Biden Clan Plundered Ukraine
By Andrii Derkach
“I give you new facts of international corruption, in which senior officials of Ukraine and the United States are involved. We are talking about almost a billion hryvnia losses to the budget of our country.
In this story, there are the names of the previous president of Ukraine, high-ranking officials, law enforcement officers and corrupt officials who must be held criminally liable under the laws of our state, as well as the United States. But first thing ……..” etc
I would add that to rectify this world wide problem of stealing money with impunity would be to go after the lawyers, accountants and bankers who set up and manage the systems for their elites bosses.
Posted couple links on readers www submission page
It will take a long time to get through all the linked documentation in the report, but so far I find it is well worth the time and effort to do so. Great report I must say.
I have some personal views along the way of course.
One comment on the telephonecall Trump made to Zelensky. I think it is only a matter of politeness Trump say can you do me a favour to…. thus making a personal relationship to the new president Zelensky. In case of the investigation of Burisma he used the known synonym you know Biden have….
Both instances were even in the talking points that are made ( NSC).
I understand the process Schiff sees clearly as impeachment proceedings, as totally missing any real substance.
Besides that, I see the constitution impeachment as a process to remove a criminal president. I think the founding fathers knew that a president may behave in certain ways as normal people sometimes do. Here are examples of misdemeanors : (wikipedia)
Depending on the jurisdiction, examples of misdemeanors may include: petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault, disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other similar crimes.
So, a law enforcement agency being alerted to this, do not discriminate, process the crime. Underway it becomes clear that the person is the president of the United States. There is a certain immunity involved. He cannot be charged with this crime, the case is forwarded probably via DOJ and end up in the House of Representatives. They have no choice but to prepare a bill of impeachment that is forwarded to the Senate for voting. 2/3 majority means removal from office, that is the conviction.
” The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. ” unquote
Nobody should understand this in a way as to empower the House of Representatives to become a Crime investigation Unit. If that is so, the constitution has been abandoned by the practice. It is known as usurping a power, or even coup d’etat.
It is almost a universal principle that a legislative branch (lawmakers) never investigates crimes in this case it is highly unethical to do so . The manner in which this is done now immediately sets off a red flag in my mind.
This also proves the point of misconstruction of power away from the US constitution by constructing political parties. It was never intended and part of misconstruction of power (the amendments). Here is the republic (the constitution) if you can keep it was indeed a warning in this respect.
As for other crimes than misdemeanors, it is exactly the same proceedings. The impeachment may lead to conviction by 2/3 majority vote in the senate to be removed from office. The US constitution have provided (limited) immunity for the office of the president of the USA. The President may or may not be convicted to be removed from office: Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Thanks for highlighting the point of accusation vs. trial.
My understanding is that you are saying the Constitution gives the House the power to bring an accusation but not to conduct a trial.
So, these “inquiries” are looking for a crime to accuse Trump of. As was the Mueller “inquiry.” There seems to be no essential difference. They are both fishing trips.
According to Merriam-Webster:
” to bring an accusation (as of wrongdoing or impropriety) against : charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misbehavior in office : arraign or cite for official misconduct ”
Thus, it seems that the Senate is the “competent tribunal” in the case of impeachment and removal of a president. I wonder whether the public understands that “impeach” means only make an accusation/complaint. I.e., seems like the house is like a DA who decided to convene a grand jury. But this grand jury is actually a public show trial.
Both the Senate and the House hold hearings in the normal course of affairs, for legislators to gather information. So, the inquiry is being held by the House Intelligence Committee.
Is there a technical difference between a hearing and an iquiry?
WaPo: “There is serious evidence that the president may have violated the Constitution,” (Jim) McGovern said.
“Serious evidence . . . *may have* . . .” sounds to me like an oxymoron.
And, which part of the Constitution was that?
IMO, there is “serious evidence” that this whole thing is a pointless vengeful circus that ignores serious violations of international treaties and thus US law by present and past presidents and the legislative bodies that permitted these violations to occur.
Just watched a documentary on how the Third Reich used propaganda films, and how, conversely, films made under the Third Reich reflected the undercurrents of fear, anxiety, inabilty to face reality head-on but to put the population in a dream state in which they accept the idea of self-sacrifice and the ultimate Untergang.
This televised inquiry also serves as propagandized entertainment. What does it show about our society’s unconscious psychological profile?
A guess: a penchant for bullying, a public auto da fe of a leader (deeply flawed leader is irrelevant) who is made into a sacrificial victim and recipient of all of the hatred and bile bubbling under the surface of US society; self-aggrandizement and inability to face the reality that this society is on the downslope, culturally, economically, and intellectually.
The “inquiry” also reflects the same profile of the Dem party itself. These people are liars but I think they don’t know it. They are projecting onto their sacrificial victim/villain/witch what they themselves have done. This process is half conscious and “rational” (deflect and preempt potential Barr/Horowitz findings) and partially unconscious. They have no conscience.
The main dynamic here is projection.
Here I must agree with Amazing Polly, whose deconstructions of the life stories, origins, and loyalties of many of the players, especially Vindman, is well worth watching.
Second and first videos down (view in that order).
The point regarding impeachment is that according to the constitution a crime must have occurred, (proven by a law enforcement agency, but the president can not be charged with the crime by a court of justice. There is a certain immunity that is evident from his special status as the president . You know there are also immunity for diplomatic according to international law, so this is not exceptional.
The House of Representatives must prepare a bill for impeachment . The Senate are to vote on the impeachment from a relatively simple process in the House. It is a matter of writing the bill according to the proven details in the case as they are the lawmakers in the House and should have the expertise, but lawmakers are not to hold neither a trial nor do the investigation, it is a matter of principle. The Congress are not to vote therefore as a whole, the process (trial) is held and voted on in the Senate.
Inquiry or hearing. This does not matter. It is significant to show that the simple process has then become a corrupt, where the constitution itself has been altered by practice and by law over time. Misconstruction of power (the amendments, preface to, in order to safeguard against) these additional powers that corrected the constitution has been given to the people, efforts to undermine the constitution has been going on for a long time.
Actually it goes through a committee(s), first the intelligence committee(or should I say not so intelligent committee), holds hearings and determines if that group of people want to send it on to the Justice committee where they then decide if there is enough evidence to bring it to a trial which is held in the senate. These are very junior representatives, the senators have a longer standing service time and are better tuned to political events, but it only works if a majority owns the senate and presidency.
Plus this is more a political civil war theater than anything or anyone breaking the law, the law its self is on trial here in the states and some of the representatives may get caught actually breaking the law before its all said and done.
Really scary how the NSC and the “interagency” set up referred to by eg Susan Hill plus others at impeachment hearing with diplomats have for so very very many years been establishing and embedding via control ofpolitics and control of media by any means possible their own falseview of the Russian state and world based on their own self delusional hysyerical research and philosophies…to the extant it has absolutely poisened world wide politics in USA Nato EU Baltics and other countries…..leading to extreme consequences such as regime change and destruction of peoples and countries well being ..that seems to have a whirlwind evil life of its own sucking in anyone and anything that can latch onto peoples and countries vulnerabilities xenophobia hysteria psychosis and psychopathic tendencies and exploiting and developing them into the indispensable nations collective absurdity to deal with anyone that might disagree or threaten their falsehood.
I have no idea how this poisen can be confronted to the extent it can be eradicated……without fearful consequences world wide. Maybe it can be encouraged to self combust.
I look forward to George Eliasons next article too. Thank you Mr Zuesse and all other independants steadily working away to reveal all.
di Genoa on fox news (I know, fox) says that soros is and has been in complete control of the us foreign service for years. As article above notes, soros was a heavy player in the coup in kiev and has been dictating policy directly within obama admin.
di genoa did not offer any evidence but I think the evidence is clear. And of course, fiona hill, immdiately comes out and charges, …wait for it… that assertion is anti-semitic. But of course, that is what they do when the charge gets too close to the target.
To my mind, this article is an excellent summary and lays out a great deal of what has been ignored:
-big point, kolomoisky’s heavy involvement in May 2 Odessa massacre;
– kolomoisky key interest in hiring hunter, also kerry’s connection, to cover for his huge theft via privat bank of IMF funds, etc
-soros heavy involvement/control almost everywhere in the foreign service;
This article attempts to summarize but to my mind the evil, the rot, the poison, is so huge, it is almost beyond comprehension; who has the balls, the power, the resources to clean this up. I don’t know. It sure as hell is not what we call the press these days. A few are out there, soloman, caitlin, aaron mate, zuesse, eliason but they are like a drop in a huge ocean of zionist controlled major “news” structures.
Just for example, the NYT just came out with an article by that war criminal, wolfowitz, who has been hiding under a rock for years, to advocate for more future war. Gad, beyond disgust and I will not link such garbage.
The way the ‘antisemitism’ industry works is that, if you mention any Jewish human being in any way that is not groveling, even if you do not mention their Jewish background, you are a filthy ‘antisemite’, a Holocaust denying Nazi, intent on finishing Hitler’s work. Any attempt at all to defend yourself is further proof of your guilt. The accusation is all, and brings immediate and condign punishment, and can be entirely invented as we see with the witch-hunt to destroy Corbyn in the UK. It infers, quite unambiguously, that any criticism of any Jewish human being, for any action, no matter how widely condemned it would be if committed by a goy, is always based on nothing but ‘antisemitic’ hatred, born of envy at their marvelousness. It implies, pretty plainly, that Jewish human beings never commit any bad act, even accidentally or in pursuit of a greater good. It is group and individual narcissism and supremacism taken to the very extremity of self-obsession.
I applaud the author for his effort and diligence, but the impeachment process is just for show –
to keep the masses occupied with bs and divided. To keep the masses focused on one-another
instead of the 1%. To re-direct real anger&frustration due to economic troubles [which the West exploits in other countries for coup d’état] away from the 1% – so no real revolution and change can ever happen.
Writing about this show – just promotes the show.
FDR was an american version of that historical period’s dictators.
And his vision of the UN was USA managed international governor.
“Trump, after all, didn’t do the coup to Ukraine; Obama did.”
The real problem is that a lot of Dem/liberal/Obaba-bots etc. don’t think there *was* a coup in the Ukraine 2014.
What do the Democrats trust about the media? They trust that the media won’t reveal the corruption within the DNC, government, business, banking sector? They trust them to be yellow journalist propagandists? They trust that they will cover high speed chases and have week long marathons over mass shootings? There is absolutely nothing to trust the media for other than those things, which is not a good thing.
And regarding Russia, it is shocking that they are still so antiRussian! It is surprising that they haven’t left America, got plastic surgery, and assumed another identity for embarassment of pathological lying and election rigging! They are a shameless pride of pigs!
They still have made no compelling argument to be anti-Russian. They are actually worse than the government! The government was elected. These are just a bunch of lying lunatics.
United States steals Ancient Chinese Secret of Literay Inquisition. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden embarrassed U.S. government propagandists that pretend to be journalists. If I saw themat a restaurant, I would probably start throwing food at them. Really, I admit it. Not exactly civilized, but America is beyond that now. They have proven it!
Restaurants! Protect your clientel from a disrupted dinner and refuse to seat the corrupt propagandists! Cake bakers ruling legalizes it!
In 1935, mussolini threatened, or talked about, going to war against germany over germany swallowing up Austria, something the nazis were considering then. Germany waited and took over Austria a few years later, and mussolini forgot his earlier threats.
But what if hitler had tried to annex Austria and italy went to war against germany over this? It probably would have inadvertently prevented WW2 from happening, and also franco’s take over of spain, with germany and italy debilitating each other over Austria. But since that scenario never played out, we’ll never know.
So what’s the point of this seamingly inane rambling? I view this trump vs biden clown show the same way I would view a 1935 war between nazi germany and fascist italy. Let the sods kill each other off. Put the ziothings in a ring and let ’em go at it with handbags. Put lead weights in the handbags, to make it more interesting. Better yet, a few caltrops. ;-D
Personally, I really don’t care about the details of this misdirection psywar nonsense. There is nobody worth defending, nobody worth supporting.
”So what’s the point of this seamingly inane rambling? I view this trump vs biden clown show the same way I would view a 1935 war between nazi germany and fascist italy. Let the sods kill each other off.”
Precisely. And enjoy the screamfest on either side of this horrific ”divide” too. It’s like the mutual love between Ukros and Poles, really. Not even their common trait of psychotic Russophobia seems to help, LOL.
Remain silent and observe.
“And never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake .”
‘Know yourself and know your enemy, and you will never lose a battle’. My Mulgarised version of Sun Zi.
All of this is an enormous circus and red herring for the US public.
Its appalling to see level / std of conduct going on as nobody questioned similar things past Presidents (from LBJ- Nixon Ford Carter etc…) did with foreign leaders.
I also think most people are getting tired of hearing about these things.
Where is the investigation into the Clintons and Obama’s indiscretions including FISA ?
If I were Trump I’d be ordering a Presidential Commission into them, the Democratic Party and corrupt payments and kickbacks, the media, and big tech.
At bottom, most of this submission by Roberts is political navel-gazing, Pindo style. It’s akin to the chatter in various fora on the subject of 911 with its deliberate, utmost focus on how it was accomplished, and next to nothing about why and by who. To wit, a big ”technical” pissing contest of sorts.
The US is firmly committed to fascist reaction, lawlessness, and genocide. And the leadership quality of any society is actually a reflexion of the quality of its citizenry. Russia, Ukraine, and the US are excellent cases in point. This should only come as a surprise for people/s addicted to self-worship, such as Pindos and Ukros.
An exhaustive, and very detailed expose of Ukrainegate Eric, appreciate your efforts.
Will go back and reread again later.
You’ll never hear the presstitutes state that Obama overthrew the Ukraine Govt of Victor Yanukovych.
Just like you’ll never hear them say the fascist coup in Bolivia was even a coup.
That these evil creatures have pushed tensions in the World to an incredibly dangerous level speaks volumes about their criminality in total service to the Anglo Zionist Empire.
That they lie and censor and smear over and over, yet retain their ‘jobs’ and high salaries, and perks speaks volumes about the state of our world. Its revolting.
By the way, have you thought about voting for the Green Party?
No, the presstitute vermin lie and lie and lie some more, about everything. Their pay packets depend on it. The fascist putsch in Ukraine is now known as the ‘Revolution of Dignity’. That makes ‘Arbeit macht Frei’ seem almost truthful in comparison. I was in the Greens, years ago, and after a year of internecine squabbling won by the Rightwing, anti-Chinese, pro-Tibet, Bob Brown clones, I legged it. Look at the Germany Greens, belligerent Atlanticists and neo-liberals, to see where our Greens are going.
I don’t see a clear pattern of any Trump policy, in particular re Ukraine and Russia. Trump talked about better relations with Russia, but kicked Russian diplomats out of the country and quit the INF and probably will quit the Start treaty. He has sent missiles to Ukraine, which even Obama did not do.
This is a delusional replay of the first false story about Russia interfering the election, poisoning the Skripals, shooting down the Malaysian airliner.
Diplomacy is all about exchanging “favours” and “quid pro quo’s”. The biggest favours of all was the ones that Biden and his son got.
I think I have missed the plot here.
Quid pro quos taht benefit a diplomat qua private person, not the state?
I don’t think so. Those are bribes/pay-to-play.
I think a good example of a valid quid pro quo would be Kennedy’s “trading” removing missiles from Turkey in return for the USSR removing missiles from Cuba.
Not if the USSR had been obliged to pay a few millions into some slush fund for Kennedy.
It is only in a decadent, degenerate age with the aid of advanced technology
that Satanism can become a Totalitarian Construct. To ensnare populations in
lies, to drive them to mass psychosis by constructing a seamless false reality
is transforming entire countries into houses of horror populated by ghoulish monstrosities.
The masses, conditioned from birth to be devil worshippers by the necromantic
SPECTRE that overshadows the globe, participate the world over in a macabre
dance of the dead. Human nature is tortured into twisted abominations in the
dark dungeons of the mass media labs of the whore of babylon. Corruption
is so endemic and all-pervasive, that it is now taboo to even mention it. Trump
is being impeached for merely scratching the surface. AG Barr spins the necromantic
spell of the epstein narrative with an absurd tale of viewing a video that shows no one
entering the cell, when he has not even corroborated that the video was authentic,
or that epstein was even in the cell, and when it has been reported that the cameras
were not functioning and that no DNA evidence was obtained to confirm the body
was epstein’s. Creating a false reality is a blasphemy against the holy ghost. It is
a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living god. Those who do so will know the
terror of their nothingness.
I agree with all of this.
I think this fable of Aesop is appropriate:
WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf’s right to eat him. He thus addressed him: “Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me.” “Indeed,” bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, “I was not then born.” Then said the Wolf, “You feed in my pasture.” “No, good sir,” replied the Lamb, “I have not yet tasted grass.” Again said the Wolf, “You drink of my well.” “No,” exclaimed the Lamb, “I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother’s milk is both food and drink to me.” Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, “Well! I won’t remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations.”
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.
I guess the only question then is, is tyranny against the law? And if not, why not. Why not make it against the laws of nature and hold said congressman, or woman, to task for breaking the law.
Why no mention of US intelligence behind the scenes stage-managing it all? C’mon, every name mentioned is a puppet, on both sides. The purpose? Prepare for the fake 2020 election by pushing Bernie Sanders’ revolution off the public stage. Anything, or anyone, but that. Meanwhile CIA cut-out Buttigieg rises in the “polls” daily. The next Obama?
Thank you for the lengthy report, Mr. Zuesse.
We propose *why* the Impeachment charade was initiated.
It could well be the Dems (and their PAYMASTERS) realized Trump/Giuliani and others had hit upon the Biden nefarious dealings in The Ukraine. in so doing we see how and why the Obama/Clinton/ powers became imbedded not only in the Ukraine coup, but where “Russiagate” was first hatched.
Unfortunately, the full story is going to take years to fully comprehend.
At this point, though, Ukraine is NOT the most corrupt assembly of bad actors, it is, unquestionably, the corrupt and deadly powers of America.
There is no “story.” All play acting. When will we realize that it’s all a charade. I say this not to be cute but to point out that these sleepwalking public figures are puppets. The string-pullers are always hidden.
I liked the authors differentiating between nationalists and patriots. If this country had more patriots that took seriously their civic responsibility to monitor their elected officials and home schooled their kid so they actually learned to think critically, we might turn this pig around. After all this population has access to 300,000,000 guns.
If indeed the Obama administration and the “deep state” wanted Ukraine to become some “tip of the spear”
against Russia,—then why did they allow or somehow delay or whatever, so that Ukrainian armed forces would become basically dismantled, under this military chief of staff Zamana [now tried for treason] under Yanukovych who then apparently was preparing groundwork for Ukraine to just disarm and for Russia to go right in and take over completely? There was talk that when Russia moved into Crimea, Ukraine barely had a few thousand
combat ready troops! Completely disarmed. And its industries already crippled, sabotaged, starved of fuel
which had to come from Russia. So what kind of “spear-point against Russia” was this ever supposed to be???
Something here just does not make any sense.
The only way a weakened Trump and a weakened Zelensky would play into the hands of the Kremlin is if the aim of Russia’s policy is to maintain the current status quo in Donbass indefinitely. Of course, in the five years since the conflict in Eastern Ukraine began, certain forces that are interested in this very scenario have emerged and gained a foothold in Russia. However, maintaining the status quo would not only mean a humanitarian disaster in Eastern Ukraine and the complete breakdown of Russia–Ukraine relations. It would also mean the further deepening of the current schism in Europe, with Russia and the “aggregate West” drifting yet further apart. And this at a time when the growing burden of global and regional problems demands that bridges be built as quickly as possible. “Time is a bad ally,” as Winston Churchill used to say. And time is against both Kiev and Moscow in the current crisis.