Thursday, November 14, 2019

UPDATED: Impeachment Theater #2

This was enjoyable--Greg Gutfeld, on porno for Dems:

Why didn't I think of that? Perfect!

And then there's this:

HUGE! EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Documents Released by Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office Reveal MILLIONS Funneled to Hunter Biden and the John Kerry Family

H/T Thomas Lifson at AmThinker: Ukraine and the fine hand of George Soros. Lifson links to Toensing and diGenova with Lou Dobbs, and what they have to say expands on what I've been saying about Soros. I've gone over, corrected, and expanded the Grabien transcript:

Lou: Let’s go to Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani, I love the fact he’s defending the president in an op-ed. All the work that he's has done. I hear all the testimony today, at least, from those who want to quiet him, and quiet the president, and try to, stating this, that they think this is outrageous that people should have truth and justice in far away places like Ukraine. Giuliani and the president think the opposite. What do you think, Victoria? 
Toensing: That's what Rudy Giuliani has been doing since he has begun representing the president. I know, because he [Giuliani] called me in February of this year telling me what he had just discovered about Ukraine, and about the people [garbled] had come to him and telling him, "These people in Ukraine were helping to frame the president." And he said, "I can't represent him, because I have to represent the president," and he [Giuliani] asked me to represent him. That's how I got involved in it all. But, you know, our sweet little ambassador [Marie Yovanavitch] went around and told everyone not to talk to us when we went there, and so did George Kent. He flew into Kiev to do that. You can't blame the president for being mad at Ukraine! They were part of the cabal against him, from the day he was elected. 
Lou: You know what? I hafta tell you, as I watch it, I’m sitting there thinking, These are two earnest--and I'm going to give them credit for being well intentioned--public servants. But for all the world it was because they weren’t in this special super duper irregular chain and no one had patted them on the back or had a sip of tea with them. That’s what they seemed upset about! It was outrageous to me that they have this sort of petty reaction to not being in the irregular chain as well as the regular chain. And it didn’t seem either were actually disturbed by it. George Kent is a separate issue, though, in this, and his motives seem peculiar to me. John Solomon reported back in March--and I wanna get this right--that George Kent had pressured Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation into ANTAC, the Anti-Corruption Action Center that George Soros group sponsored. This is a complicated deal here. And it seems he wanted to keep an investigation of Ukrainian corruption with limits on it, even as he answered questions today. Your thoughts, Joe? 
diGenova: Well, there's no doubt that George Soros controls a large part of the career Foreign Service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs, work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine, and Kent was part of that. He was a very big protector of Soros. His testimony today shows this kind of stern, kind of discomfort with not being included in certain discussions. But the truth is, George Soros had a daily opportunity to tell the State Department through Victoria Nuland what to do in Ukraine. Soros ran it. He corrupted FBI officials, he corrupted Foreign Service officers. And the bottom line is this--George Soros wants to run Ukraine, and he’s doing everything he can to use every lever of the United States government to make that happen. For business interests, not for good government! 
Toensing: His organization is not anti-corruption, it's anti-competitor. It goes after people who compete with George Soros in the name of anticorruption. 
Lou: It was an interesting moment, with George Kent under questioning on that, in the way that he walked right up to the boundary but wouldn’t go so far as to say this should be a comprehensive investigation of these activities that of course is precisely what the president of the United States made clear to President Zelensky that he wanted, bringing in the U.S. Justice Department to work with the Ukrainian authorities and government.

Listen to the video to catch the voice inflections by following the link to AmThinker.

Michael Goodwin gets to the heart of it--it's the coverup.

Ohio Republican Jim Jordan got Taylor to acknowledge he had three meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over a 55-day period after the Trump phone call. Not once, Jordan said and Taylor agreed, did Zelensky complain that Trump was pressuring him to do the investigation or that there had been a holdup in aid. 
Unfortunately, Schiff is also serious about not wanting to hear the other side of the story. He refuses to summon the so-called whistleblower, and his party shows absolutely no interest in learning why Hunter Biden got rich while his father was visiting Ukraine repeatedly. 
Republicans kept bringing up both topics and Kent acknowledged that he had raised concerns nearly four years ago about the “perception of a conflict of interest” with the State Department and Biden’s office, but got no ­response.
Similarly, Dems and their media handmaidens mock Trump’s interest in what role Ukraine played in 2016, deriding it as a wild conspiracy theory.
But in fact, it is well established that Ukraine’s Washington embassy helped spread dirt on Paul Manafort when he was Trump campaign chairman and that some Ukraine officials met with Hillary Clinton aides and other Democrats in 2016. Among them was Alexandra Chalupa, a former Democratic National Committee contractor who worked with Ukrainians to get dirt on Trump.
According to Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican at Wednesday’s hearing, Dems took her name out of the testimony transcripts before releasing them. That’s ­curious. 
All of which points to the biggest problem with the Schiff show. Dems obviously fear a fair and complete investigation of all the facts, one that reveals their contacts with the whistleblower, his political connections and all the events involving Ukraine and the Bidens.
What are they hiding?

UPDATE 1: Don Surber has an excellent, pretty full, explanation of the new documents about the Kerry/Biden Ukraine financial sleaze: Impeachment backfires on Biden. I would say it's not just backfiring on Biden--it looks to be backfiring big time on the Dem party.

Follow the link for details--Surber can tell a story. But here's the clincher:

This is so sleazy that I am surprised Chelsea Clinton didn't get a cut of the action. 
This is not some wild tale on Twitter. The New York Times uploaded the documents. This is not hearsay. This is what prosecutors have. 
The kickbacks to their family is likely was how Quid Pro Joe and Kerry behaved as senators. The titles of vice president and secretary of state upped the size of the bribes laundered through relatives. Sure Joe Biden can say he never accepted a bribe. But he was bought off like a $2 hooker. His son just collected the money. And like many a pimp, the son did nose candy. 
The impeachment trial -- and the inquiry is the trial -- is the refrigerator light causing these cockroaches to scurry.

And there's much, much, more--including quotes from John Solomon's article: Testimony bombshell: Obama administration tried to partner with Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian gas firm but was blocked over corruption concerns.

What hath Nancy wrought?

UPDATE 2: Here are two tweets that develop some of the ideas that commenter Bebe raises:

UPDATE 3: Lee Smith has been on fire on Twitter today. Sample:


  1. The USA and Soros pressured Ukraine to establish "anti-corruption" organizations that are separate from Ukraine's established justice organization. Meanwhile, the USA and Soros relentlessly criticize and delegitimize Ukraine's Prosecutor-General and his organization for being "corrupt".

    This arrangement provides a great opportunity for the CIA to run rampant in Ukraine. The CIA can place its own Ukrainian agents into the new, independent "anti-corruption" organizations. Then those CIA Ukrainian agents can go around and find Ukrainian citizens who can be compromised and compelled to provide information and do secret actions for the CIA.

    Then if Ukraine's General-Prosecutor tries to investigate and suppress this CIA operation in his country, then the US Ambassador will storm into his office and demand that he terminate all investigations of "anti-corruption activists" who are "supported by the US Embassy".

    Thus, Ukraine is controlled and manipulated effectively by the CIA.

    1. The whole thing stinks. And don't forget that the FBI has had a very large presence in Ukraine. Supposedly training, but we know the reality is recruiting within the LE and justice orgs, surely in cooperation with CIA. These are the techniques of empire. And the thing is, we don't need to do that stuff to MAGA. All it does is make us distrusted.

    2. The New York Times, October 6, 2019 -- page 16 (emphasis added)


      .... Shortly after taking up her post in 2016, the American ambassador to Ukraine, Marie I. Yovanovitch, went to meet the new prosecutor general, Mr. [Yuriy] Lutsenko, in his office -- and complained that his deputies were stained by corruption, according to two Ukrainian officials familiar with the encounter.

      The ambassador then pressed Mr. Lutsenko further, the officials said, asking him to stop investigating anti-corruption activists who were supported by the American Embassy and had criticized his work.

      Mr. Lutsenko said he snapped at Ms. Yovanovitch that "no one is going to dictate to me" who should be investigated, prompting the ambassador to storm out of the meeting.

      "This moment was, how shall we say, not very positive," recalled Larisa Sagan, Mr. Lutsenko's assistant at the time. "There were always difficult relations with the U.S. ambassador."

      [end quote]

      The NYT article did not include any denial by Ambassador Yovanovitch that she conducted herself thus at her meeting with Ukraine's General Prosecutor Lutsenko.

      Also according to the NYT, there is no written list of the Ukrainian "anti-corruption activists" who "are supported by the American Embassy" and who therefore may not be investigated by the Ukrainian General-Prosecutor.

    3. That's what passes as "diplomacy" in the Interagency regime that thinks it runs foreign policy.

  2. Eric Felten, an excellent reporter at RealClear Investigations, had this to add to our sadly deficient information bank, as witnessed by the absence of pushback by even the Republicans in yesterday’s hearing when stuffy Bill Taylor was harumphing about “irregular diplomacy” (curiously talking about four envoys, three of whom had had Senate confirmations - Volker, Sondland and Sec. Perry - and noted ex NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, now the President’s personal lawyer, who was asked to come to Ukraine by members of its administration.* Taylor, an acting ambassador, is a placeholder who has never been confirmed and is painfully out of the loop.

    Rudolph Giuliani didn’t hide the fact that he was investigating whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential race. Yet most media have treated Giuliani’s efforts as sneaky and suspect because he acted at the personal behest of the president and not as an official representative of the bureaucracy. The New York Times, for example, claimed Giuliani was conducting “a shadow foreign policy campaign.”

    In fact, presidents since George Washington have turned to individuals without formal government positions to pursue foreign policy interests and objectives. Private citizens, often acting as special envoys, have helped negotiate issues ranging from trade to war. While critics deride such efforts as “back-door,” “secret,” or “shadow” undertakings, many presidents have found it useful to dispatch people they trust, who can think and operate outside the constraints of official channels in handling delicate matters.

    More history lesson here:

    *Wasn’t Giuliani’s visit to Ukraine the result of their not being able to get visas from Yovanovich’s Kyev embassy so that they could hand deliver documents to Washington? They did not trust couriers. I seem to remember that they asked Giuliani to come and get them. This is from memory, often fawty...

    1. Very true. I'll add a couple of tweets that get into that nonsense about "irregular diplomacy."

  3. My browser got an error message for the Surber link. Here is a working link: