Briefly Noted: World War Three?

Since the very beginning of the Zhou Baiden regime the US military has adopted provocative measures with regard to Russia. As early as the first week of February the deployment of B-1 bombers to Norway's Arctic regions (close to sensitive Russian naval bases) was announced. A ramped up presence in Syria, near Russian forces supporting the Syrian government, has also been underway. Finally, US Navy activity in Russia's strategic backyard of the Black Sea has continued, along with the supply of hundreds of tons of military equipment to Ukraine. All this has been accompanied by a pretty much no holds barred war of words against Russia in general and Vladimir Putin in particular--including US assurances of support to Ukraine against Russia.

Ukraine, of course, is ground zero for George Soros' globalist ambitions. In addition to the military activity, US intelligence agencies, such as the FBI office in Ukraine, have coordinated with Soros operatives. The impression one gets is that Soros is having an enormous influence on US foreign policy once again, now that the restraining influence of President Trump has been removed by the Deep State and replaced by amateurish Clinton/Obama warhawks.

Ukraine has been making belligerent sounds as well, since the Zhou regime took over. Russia has responded by beefing up its own military presence in the Crimea and near the border with Ukraine in the Don basin. Zerohedge explains, via Michael Snyder--As Russian Tanks Move Toward Ukraine, The Globe Braces For World War 3:

Briefly Noted: Legal News--And Russia

I had occasion to point out yesterday (An Independent Judiciary?) that President Trump's (and Mitch McConnell's) strategy of concentrating on confirming appellate level federal judges is paying dividends. Not all is smooth sailing, of course. The 9th Circuit can still be a problem (as recently in a 2A case), but it's still far better than when Trump took office. A couple of cases on this relatively slow news day (so far) illustrate the impact Trump's appellate judges are having.

Since I mentioned the 2A just now, a case from New Jersey is a good place to start. Defense Distributed is a TX company that distributes various 3d print files for firearms and firearm accessories. New Jersey's Attorney General, Gurbir Grewal, sent Defense Distributed letters in TX attempting to restrain Defense Distributed from doing its business in NJ and threatening to prosecute Defense Distributed. The federal district court in TX agreed with Grewal that those letters were insufficient to provide the TX court with jurisdiction in the case. However, the Fifth Circuit disagreed. The SCOTUS has now--by declining Grewal's petition for certiorari--agreed with the Fifth Circuit.

The practical effect of this jurisdictional decision is that NJ will now have to justify its conduct to an unsympathetic federal court in TX. The Truth About Guns points out that the Fifth Circuit

has already made it clear that it believes that governmental efforts to restrict Defense Distributed’s distribution of 3D files have very serious if not fatal First Amendment implications.

This complicates anti-gun matters for crusading officials in anti-2A states. The SCOTUS undoubtedly knew this.

There's more good news from the 6th Circuit (which includes Ohio). You can read a longer account here:

Pearl Harbor Or 9/11? Or Both?

If you have evidence that Russia committed the SolarWinds "hack," feel free to submit it. You'll be the first to do so publicly.

In the meantime, Lefty Glenn Greenwald has a witty article at Zerohedge: With Biden's New Threats, Russia Discourse More Reckless And Dangerous Than Ever. It's witty, but sad with regard to what it says about the state of the nation's psyche. Day to day, election to fake election, we seem to live from hoax to hoax.

Greenwald doesn't do brief articles, but here are a few excerpts:

Too Late The Kraken?

My day has hardly begun and already the Silver Fox and various commenters (h/t Ray So-Cal and Cassander) are inundating me with reading material. Is there anything going on out in the world? How would I know?

One thing I've noticed, however. There seems to be an increasing air of doom and gloom among commenters on the Right, even while the Trump team continues to exude their own air of supreme confidence--not only in the righteousness of their cause but in their ultimate victory.

Just now I responded as follows to Mike Sylwester:

Mike Sylwester November 19, 2020 at 8:47 AM

At this point, the Trump team needs to present a credible confession of someone who used computers to massively affect votes. Without such a confession, Trump has lost the election.

mark wauck November 19, 2020 at 9:00 AM

Confessions--especially when the target is backed up by The Deep State--are far easier said than done. I would prefer to hope that the statistical evidence can be presented in a convincing fashion. As far back as 1976 a federal court HELD--not just opined--that statistical evidence could lead to a complete REDO of an election. The use of statistics for evidentiary purposes has become light years more sophisticated in the intervening close on to half a century. Don't say never yet.

I realize that that such assurances may seem at this point to be a slender reed on which to place our hopes. It may be that the recount tactics we're seeing for now--the pursuit of voter level fraud--are in the nature of a legal holding or delaying pattern. I'm speculating in that regard, but I say that because I've maintained in the past, like Mike, that in the final analysis the election fraud case must be the important one. That's all I have to offer for now, beyond the continuing accumulation of statistical detail that we see on the internet, day after day.

In the meantime, I offer two articles that are conceptually linked, although their approaches may seem somewhat different. The first article was linked by Cassander and examines the shadowy world of Lord Mark Malloch Brown. (As an aside, it's a continual source of bemusement to me that life-long Brit Lefties like Mark Brown accept peerships and become Lords of the realm. Go figure, eh? It must say something about the Left elites.)

Manafort, Flynn--And A Dog That Hasn't Barked Yet

John Solomon continues to plow through the FBI spreadsheet that purports to fact check the Carter Page FISA application. He's come across an interesting detail:

Memo suggests FBI opened Manafort probe before Trump hired lobbyist but gave no warning

Some question why bureau didn't give Trump a defensive briefing in spring 2016.

A footnote (#332) appears to indicate (it's redacted) that the FBI opened an investigation on Manafort on January 13, 2016, but never provided the Trump campaign with a defensive briefing about Manafort. 

Solomon consulted Kevin Brock, a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI. Brock laid out the general principles behind providing defensive briefings:

In The News: Biden - China Corruption, Trader Joe's

Right, Trader Joe's. You may have read yesterday's story about BLM in Seattle disrupting TJ stores and demanding "15% at least". Monica Showalter has a good rundown on what's going on today:

Coming soon, food desert: BLM shakes down Seattle Trader Joe's for a 15% cut

Except that TJ's hasn't caved. We know that DoJ's various entities, as well as Homeland Security, have been gathering intel for months on Antifa and BLM. For you RICO fans, a RICO action against these activities looks fairly promising. In the meantime, get out and vote.

There's more news out about Biden - China corruption. Steve Bannon is putting out interesting information that's incomplete--but suggestive, and worth acquainting yourselves with: Why Did Hunter Biden Extend Loan in China – What is this Deal About? The deal itself is somewhat convoluted, which raises suspicions in and of itself.

Bannon suggests that IF this loan agreement was not made known to the SEC and IRS it would be illegal. My guess is that it should be very easy to make that determination.

Note that this agreement was made in 2018. That makes it one in a continuing series of deals between the Biden connected companies and China--deals that stretch back to the days when Joe Biden was still Vice President. Shipwreckedcrew has the rundown on one such transaction that dates to 2015--and that suggests a very good reason why Dems were so desperate to keep not just any Republican but specifically a China Hawk like Trump from winning the presidency: 

TWO UPDATES: The Meaning Of The Berman Firing

Does Bill Barr have a strategy? That question is a bit like asking: Does Donald Trump know who his real enemies are, and why they hate him? The answer to both questions is an unequivocal 'Yes.' Tom Luongo has what seems to me to be a pretty shrewd account of how the Berman firing ties into everything else that's been going down since Trump took aim at becoming POTUS: the Russia Hoax (obviously), the hoax prosecutions in DC, the equally farcical anti-Trump lawfare prosecutions in the SDNY, and now the Soros,Deep State, Globalist Elite backed attempt at a 'Color Revolution' in the US--the Black Revolution. This is why Ukraine matters so much--the same players are at work.

It's a thoughtful piece and it makes clear how high the stakes are for the Deep State: The US Is In Civil War (And Why Berman's Firing Matters). It also may explain why Barr sees the Durham investigation continuing past the election even if 'developments' occur before the end of summer.

=========================

John Solomon On Manafort's "Black Ledger"

John Solomon has an interesting article today at his new site, Just the News. The article is based on a brief interview with Paul Manafort's former partner, Rick Gates, who was forced into a plea deal by Team Mueller in exchange for testimony against Manafort. In the interview Gates told Solomon that the famous "black ledger" that Manafort was alleged to maintain--supposedly documenting cash payments to Manafort from Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine--was a total fabrication. Not only that, but Gates told Team Mueller that all the way back in April, 2018:

Key witness told Team Mueller that Russia collusion evidence found in Ukraine was fabricated

Here's what Solomon leads off with:

One of Robert Mueller’s pivotal trial witnesses told the special prosecutor’s team in spring 2018 that a key piece of Russia collusion evidence found in Ukraine known as the “black ledger” was fabricated, according to interviews and testimony. 

The ledger document, which suddenly appeared in Kiev during the 2016 U.S. election, showed alleged cash payments from Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine to ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. 

 “The ledger was completely made up,” cooperating witness and Manafort business partner Rick Gates told prosecutors and FBI agents, according to a written summary of an April 2018 special counsel’s interview. 

... 

Gates’ account is backed by several Ukrainian officials who stated in interviews dating to 2018 that the ledger was of suspicious origins and could not be corroborated.

As Solomon points out, this puts the "black ledger" in the same category as other Russia Hoax "evidence," such as the Steele "dossier"--fabrications.

What surprises me is that, while Solomon and Gates go into considerable detail in explaining how it can be determined that the "black ledger" is a fraud, Solomon leaves out an important detail.

Who Paid For The Russia Hoax?

We did! You and I--Joe taxpayers. We pay the salaries of the bureaucrats at DoJ, the FBI, the CIA, the DoS and the NSC--the bureaucrats who tried to stage a coup.

OK, that's hardly news, but there's another less direct way in which taxpayer funding helped pay for the Russian Hoax: through grants to Non Government Organizations (NGOs). Today at The American Thinker Leo Goldstein discusses one particular such NGO, and his discussion plays into a blog I did back in November: The American Empire And Its Enemies.

Goldstein's article is The Russia Hoax Was Aided by NGOs Peddling Junk Science, but rather than focusing on the junk science angle, I want to point out the political connections, the confluence of persons, organizations, and--of course--MONEY. With that in mind, here's how Goldstein begins:

Some of the most vicious anti-Trump voices have come from US government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), affiliated with the State Department, Big Tech, and Soros afiliates. Many of these NGOs have existed since the Cold War, with a mandate to promote freedom and democracy abroad. They are forbidden to operate in the US, especially in partisan fashion. 

Note that well. These NGOs were set up to advance the cause of freedom and democracy, but they've been coopted by the international Left and the Democrat Party to advance their own cause--which happens to be what Obama termed the "fundamental transformation" of America. It's subordination to the new Globalist order.

The American Empire And Its Enemies

Most of us live within what we consider to be a republic. In that republic the citizens vote and elect representives who will pass laws, carry out the executive functions of government, and appoint judges to administer the law. All three of these "branches" of our constitutional order are charged with upholding the Constitution.

Of course, that outline is increasingly seen to be hopelessly simplistic. For conservatives it's an ideal to be restored. For "progressives," it's an instrument of oppression that stands in the way of a fundamental transformation of American society (Obama's words)--this constitutional order is to be resisted and ultimately overthrown.

The Impeachment Theater, flowing from the Ukraine Hoax, has revealed a different America--one that few of us truly feel that we belong to: the American Empire. For most Americans our foreign policy is intended to safeguard our security at home, not to police the world in the name of a non-national ideology of Globalism. And yet, what's being revealed in the Impeachment Theater is that there exists a confederation of interests--both within the government as well as outside (but very much connected with) the government--that view America as an empire. These interests are broadly bi-partisan--think: Uniparty, as sundance at CTH famously says. They are also broadly "progressive," even among the non-Dem members. Their focus on Empire is designed to "fundamentally transform" the world in the interests of a global order of their making, just as the progressive project on the domestic front is to transform American society in fundamental ways. The two projects are, of course, closely related, as we see in the growing effort to bind American domestic life to globalist norms, regulations, and laws. This effort even enjoys significant support within the progressive wing of our legal establishment and judiciary.

In these terms, Impeachment Theater is all about waging a scorched earth war against the enemies of the progressive transformation of America. Those enemies are personified in Donald Trump. Because Trump's rise and governance has been strictly in conformity with our recognized constitutional order, the forces of progressivism have obtained little traction in their "resistance" to Trump and to his conservative vision. Thus, we have--in contrast to all previous impeachments--the remarkable spectacle of serial coup attempts being run against a president, based in foreign policy rather than in domestic politics. This dynamic is what has forced this confederation of globalist interests to emerge into the open.

UPDATED: Did Vindman Falsify Trump's April Call With Zelensky?

The reason for the White House's release of the President Trump's first phone call on April 21, 2019, with the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is now coming into focus. According to the Washington Examiner,

The White House is blaming Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for misleading reporters about the contents of an April 21 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

At the time of that first phone call a "readout" or summary of the call was provided to the press. The "readout" was prepared, according to the White House, by the NSC's "Ukraine expert"--which can only mean Alexander Vindman. According to that "readout", Trump

"underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption."

However the just released transcript of the conversation reveals that Trump said none of those things. The call was basically an exchange of congratulations and pleasantries, with Trump assuring Zelensky that high level US officials would attend Zelensky's inauguration, and inviting Zelensky to visit Washington, D. C.

What's the significance of this? It appears that Vindman--who is scheduled to testify publicly next week--was putting into Trump's mouth an affirmation of "Interagency" Ukraine policy, to try to box Trump into a position that may not have been his own policy. But that was all invented by Vindman, who is almost certainly the source for Eric Ciaramella's "whistleblowing".

The affirmation of "unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders" would naturally put Trump in direct conflict with Russia. The claim that Trump had made such an affirmation, as witnessed by the provision of a "readout" in those terms to the press, would make it more difficult for Trump to deal freely with Putin.

The "commitment to work together with President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption," might seem at first glance to be unobjectionable. However, in context, that could be construed by the "Interagency" to authorize continued support for George Soros funded NGO "anti-corruption" activist groups--whose true aim was to smear Soros' competitors in Ukraine. (Cf. Impeachment Theater #2, and The Swamp Of Ukraine Corruption--And The Dems)

If Trump strayed from the "Interagency" policies, damaging leaks could be fed to the press, claiming that Trump was overturning policy that had been settled by his own administration. Now we also see why Trump approved the policy to place these call transcripts on a separate secure server.

This could make for interesting "theater" when Vindman testifies next week.

Other sources:

White House releases transcript of first Trump-Zelensky call

Summary of earlier Trump-Zelensky call released


UPDATE 1: I've been reviewing the testimony of Timothy Morrison, who replaced Fiona Hill in July, 2019, as head of the NSC Eastern Europe desk--meaning, Morrison succeeded Hill as supervisor of Alexander Vindman. Without getting into extracts from the transcript of Morrison's testimony, a certain consistent theme re Vindman jumps out:

1. During the transition of leadership, Morrison and Hill discussed the current status of the Eastern Europe desk, strengths and weaknesses--and personnel.

2. Hill told Morrison that she had concerns about Vindman's "judgment," obviously meaning that he exercised bad judgment and that Vindman was suspected of being a leaker.

3. Morrison testified that Vindman--who testified that "chain of command" was important to him--repeatedly failed to stay within the "chain of command".

4. Morrison was admonished not to provide a full answer to questions regarding examples of Vindman's disregard for the "chain of command" for the specific reason that a full answer might lead to identifying the "whistleblower".

5. In other words, Morrison is in possession of information that would show that Vindman was sharing information with Eric Ciaramella that Ciaramella was not entitled to have.

UPDATE 2: More from the Morrison transcript. Vindman was "not included", i.e., was excluded from foreign trips and was not allowed at meetings on certain (unspecified) policy areas, because of his "bad judgment" on who to share information with. Morrison also made sure that he never spoke with Vindman one-on-one. He was always careful to have someone else present when he spoke with Vindman.

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.

The Swamp Of Ukraine Corruption--And The Dems

The swamp of Ukraine corruption is far too vast a topic for me to take on--I prefer to stick to issues more directly related to areas in which I have more experience. However, several commenters, including Mike Sylwester and Cassander, have been exploring the topic. Here I'll simply offer some recent articles by knowledgeable students of what's been going on--how Ukrainian corruption has intersected with US politics.

We'll begin by linking to a blog at Moon of Alabama that Cassander pointed to: A Timeline Of Joe Biden's Intervention Against The Prosecutor General Of Ukraine.

The first article that I'll draw attention to is a relatively brief one by Patrick Lawrence: The Impeachment Pantomime. And here's a little teaser:

If everyone knows the whistleblower’s identity, why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella’s identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act — farce by any other name, although “hoax” might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.  

There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden’s official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 — a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. 

There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden’s activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure. 

The next two articles are much longer.

Larry Johnson On The Meaning Of Last Night

Before we get to Larry Johnson, I want to briefly recap the core of Dan Bongino's show today (h/t commenter Cassander). The core of Bongino's show, Why is John Brennan Melting Down? is the big picture of the Russia Hoax. I've written about much of this at one time or another, as have others, but Bongino gathers all the threads together into a coherent presentation. Here's how it works, in outline:

The Russia Hoax was an operation of the Hillary campaign. 

As such, it was largely the brainchild of Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, with help from Nellie Ohr. 

But a major role was played by George Soros. Soros wanted to run Ukraine as a private fiefdom and, of course, enrich himself further. To that end, Soros, as usual provided lots of money to the Dems running the US government, who obligingly harassed Soros' rivals in Ukraine. In return, Soros ensured Ukrainian cooperation against Trump. 

John Brennan provided Christopher Steele. The reason Steele was needed was that, in order to instigate an FBI investigation of Trump/his campaign, a frontman with credibility was needed--an ex-MI6 spook was perfect. An oppo research firm like Fusion GPS would never have worked.

The buck for all of the US government cooperation with Soros stops, of course, in the Oval Office. We know that Obama was in on the planned coup. All the rest of what we've been following falls under this umbrella. Some of this may take a bit of a different shape, but I believe that as a big picture it works.

One last thing before Larry Johnson. Many of you saw John Ratcliffe on Fox last night. Ratcliffe stated as fact that the nearly simultaneous announcement from IG Horowitz that his report would be coming out shortly with minimal redaction and from DoJ that Barr/Durham was now a criminal investigation with Grand Jury powers was not a coincidence. The announcements were related.

With that in mind we turn to Larry Johnson, whom I've cited several times in the past. I picked this up from Gateway Pundit and you can read the entire thing there: Bill Barr Has Pulled the Trigger and Altered the Landscape – The Deep State Does Not Truly Understand the Peril They Now Face. Johnson has been a longtime Deep State observer and I believe him to have good sources. Read this in light of the big picture that Bongino provides:

Ukraine Convergences: Financial And Policy Interests

It seems very clear to me that, beyond Trump himself, the Ukraine Hoax is all about policy differences. And by policy differences I mean mostly MONEY. There are lunatics out there like John Bolton who believe the stuff they peddle, but the bottom line for the politicians is that Ukraine is a code for MONEY. Follow it and you'll understand. And look for George Soros' hand behind this, too. Well, that's MONEY as well.

I prefer to offer opinion, rather than retransmitting facts, but we're in a slow stretch. So I offer this twitter thread. Basically it identifies attendees at a White House dinner in October, 2016. Now, mere attendance at such a dinner doesn't mean everyone in attendance is on a first name basis with everyone else. Nor do we know everyone else who may have been in attendance. There are clearly outliers from the Ukraine Hoax. Leonardo DiCaprio?

Nevertheless, if you look for an intersection of two groups--those with financial/campaign connections to Ukraine and those with policy preferences re Ukraine that diverge from Trump's--you will find a remarkable convergence. And when people have a convergence of interests they tend to talk to one another. And sometimes to plot with one another when they also have a common enemy.

Who that's named had financial ties to Ukraine? One way or another, sometimes through close family ties, we can certainly name Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, the Podesta brothers. Those with decided pro-Ukraine policy views would include Ciaramella, Misko, Grace, Kupchan.

And then you have the congenital plotters: Brennan, Comey, Clapper. It's quite a mix. Keep those names in mind.


Follow the link for photos:

Greg Rubini@GregRubini 

 1. imagine if at a dinner in Washington DC, in Oct 2016, you had: - John Brennan, Director of the CIA - Susan Rice, Obama's Nat. Security Adviser together with Eric Ciaramella - the Adam Schiff 'whistleblower'...

 [THREAD] please retweet .

 2. imagine if at that dinner in Washington DC there were also: - Joe Biden - Nancy Pelosi - John Kerry - Obama's Secretary of State - Loretta Lynch - Obama's Attorney General

 3. imagine if at that dinner in Washington DC there were also: - John Podesta - Tony Podesta - Valerie Jarrett (obama's nanny) - Samantha Powers - Leonardo DiCaprio (???)

Marie Yovanovitch Was A Total Headcase

Really--this is the kind of goof that the Dems didn't want Trump to fire? This is the type of person they think they can bring forward as a credible witness in an impeachment trial? They simply can't be serious. It's theater--and bad theater, at that. Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch has obtained information indicating Yovanovitch may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons using State Department resources. Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: Biden, Giuliani, Soros and Yovanovitch.  Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department and will continue gathering facts from government sources.

Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means.  Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information. 

“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C.

And here are the people on that list--this may not be exhaustive:

Jack Posobiec 

Donald Trump Jr. 

Laura Ingraham 

Sean Hannity 

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia) 

Dan Bongino 

Ryan Saavedra 

Rudy Giuliani 

Sebastian Gorka 

John Solomon 

Lou Dobbs 

Pamella Geller 

Sara Carter

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Briefly Noted: What You Should Know About Marie Yovanovitch

Marie Yovanovitch is the former ambassador to Ukraine who was removed for anti-Trump activity. Devin Nunes tells you what you need to know:

Rep. Devin Nunes: It was well known. We’ve had both former officials and current officials come and tell us that this was a very partisan ambassador. This was somebody who was not only supporting the Clintons, when Clinton was running, telling the people that Clinton was going to win, prognosticating about it. But also once Trump won was badmouthing the Trump administration in Ukraine, to Ukrainians and State Department staff… We would want to get her on the record, did she support the Trump administration? Did she really say these negative things about the Trump administration? Was she looking at journalists? Was she monitoring journalists in the United States? These are all questions that we want answers to… My guess here is that this is someone who the Democrats have been coordinating with. Let’s not pretend that this ambassador hasn’t been working with the Democrats. That’s been happening.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline adds an interesting angle. John Solomon has reported:

the U.S. embassy in Kiev had been refusing to provide Ukrainian law enforcement officials with visas so they can deliver their evidence of election meddling and corruption to Washington.

Mirengoff adds:

For what it’s worth, I have heard rumors that Yovanovitch has said privately that she blocked the visas at the behest of Joe Biden. This is third-hand information and should be viewed as such.

UPDATE: Really important interview with John Solomon: John Solomon Exposes Fired Ukrainian Ambassador's Links to Radical Soros Group. The video is about 8 minutes long but Solomon comes on about half way through. Very interesting. Solomon also speaks about the indictments by DoJ of the two Ukrainian associates of Rudy Giuliani:

More On Schiff's Ukraine Connection

It's the way Washington "works." Back on September 29, 2019, we discussed Shifty Adam's Ukraine Connection--and that connection is Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak:

The whole Russia hysteria seems inexplicable in realistic terms--there doesn't seem to be a convincing reason for the outlandish fear mongering with regard to Russia. Now we may have a partial answer. 

You may have seen some of the stories that have been starting to circulate about Adam Schiff's connection to Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. It seems that Pasternak has hosted campaign fundraisers for Schiff ...

And anywhere there's a connection between Ukraine and left wing politics, George Soros can't be far away ...

Stop me if this sounds too "conspiratorial," but ...

Ukraine is in conflict with Russia, so they want US help. US help can be obtained--for a price! That price can be paid in the form of campaign contributions to US politicians, but it has to be done creatively. Say, in the form of hosted fundraisers by Ukrainian Americans. Alexandra Chalupa is ready to help! The industrious Yakov Apelbaum is happy to document that for you (How to Finance Your Congressional Campaign with Arms Sales). 

So the deal is something like this. US politicians drum up anti-Russia hysteria. Ukrainian money men route filthy luchre to the campaigns of US politicians. That's called a quid pro quo, and it seems to be what makes US politics "work".

Today Fox is offering a few more details. Nothing changes:

Impeachment Theater: What It's About

I have in the past spoken repeatedly about "Impeachment Theater." The point is simply that theater mimics life, but it's not real and everyone knows that. Theater, in the usual sense, doesn't change anything in the real world. Impeachment Theater is mimicing real life but, like theater, it's not real. Not in the usual sense.

Impeachment Theater is taking place in the field of action in the real world, and its intent is precisely to change that real world. The point of the deception is to gain acceptance for that change in the real world of public opinion.

The goal, as we've been discussing during the past few weeks, has to do with political legitimacy. The Dem contention is that there is only one legitimate political party--theirs. And yet, at this moment, a different group claiming to be a legitimate political party controls the Senate and the White House. The Dem goal is, through Impeachment Theater, to delegitimate that rival grouping, seize control of the Branches of government, acquire power and never relinquish it. A One Party state, leading George Soros' "Open Society," is the end goal. If Trump should be successfully removed after an Impeachment Theater show trial, make no mistake about it--more show trials would follow, starting with Brett Kavanaugh. A compliant media would egg on the howling Leftist mob.

One step at a time, however. Right now the proximate goal for the Dems must be survival in the face of the existential threat that Trump poses through the Barr/Durham investigations.

Let's look at how this Impeachment Theater works.

Shifty Adam's Ukraine Connection

Earlier today I posed the question, in connection with the Ukraine Hoax,

doesn't the American public deserve to know who these faceless bureaucrats are, who think they should pass judgment on foreign policy that the American public voted for? What policies do they favor, and do they represent interests beyond their own intellectual preferences? Non-IC actors in politics and business?

The whole Russia hysteria seems inexplicable in realistic terms--there doesn't seem to be a convincing reason for the outlandish fear mongering with regard to Russia. Now we may have a partial answer.

You may have seen some of the stories that have been starting to circulate about Adam Schiff's connection to Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. It seems that Pasternak has hosted campaign fundraisers for Schiff, as GP graphically documents:

And anywhere there's a connection between Ukraine and left wing politics, George Soros can't be far away:

Stop me if this sounds too conspiratorial, but ...

Ukraine is in conflict with Russia, so they want US help. US help can be obtained--for a price! That price can be paid in the form of campaign contributions to US politicians, but it has to be done creatively. Say, in the form of hosted fundraisers by Ukrainian Americans. Alexandra Chalupa is ready to help! The industrious Yakov Apelbaum is happy to document that for you (How to Finance Your Congressional Campaign with Arms Sales).

So the deal is something like this. US politicians drum up anti-Russia hysteria. Ukrainian money men route filthy luchre to the campaigns of US politicians. That's called a quid pro quo, and it seems to be what makes US politics "work". That's what you get with Empire. America gonif!

Now you're probably thinking, Wow! What a great scam for Shifty Adam! He needs to keep working that one close to the vest. If that's what you're thinking you'd be sadly mistaken. US politicians are on to scams like that like flies on ... well, you know what. Yakov Apelbaum explains:

Image 1: Igor Pasternak’s luxury home in DC where in 2013 Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi used  Igor Pasternak to host and fundraise for Schiff’s congressional election 

And the best part is that you never have to worry about paying him back for any of these favors, because it’s all absolutely free, no strings attached. After all, everyone knows that Ukrainian arms dealers float the election campaign of congressional candidates like Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and Loretta Sanchez, because they are just so cuddly and lovable.

And, to be totally honest, I'm guessing that lots more US politicians--including Republicans--participated in this entertaining and profitable wheeze. We'll probably find out about that, although they're being coy about it so far.

And then came Trump, with all that blather about "draining The Swamp." And, whoa! it turns out he actually meant it, and was actually contemplating withholding the aid money to Ukraine that the politicians had promised Igor Pasternak (and many more Ukrainians like him) was in the pipeline. The sky was falling--impeach the SOB! And do something about his AG who's independently wealthy and doesn't need no stinking campaign contributions!

Won't it be interesting to see how all this works out?

In the meantime, The Duran offers this nice summary--Adam Schiff’s collusion with oligarch, Ukrainian arms dealer, exposed:

What drives Adam Schiff’s never ending Russia hysteria? 

When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff’s well documented Putin obsession may have something to do with his billionaire, military complex, oligarch patron from Ukraine. 

In a Zerohedge post yesterday, chronicling the latest Adam Schiff idiocy, where the Democrat Congressman spoke to a crowd at the University of Pennsylvania, declaring Russian ads promoted the Second Amendment during the 2016 election “so we will kill each other” commenter AlaricBalth linked some interesting information on Schiff’s underlying motivation behind his Russia hysteria… 

Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff’s anti-Russian narrative is carefully orchestrated by his Ukrainian handlers

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/843864725062664197

“TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam Schiff”

http://politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/

Pasternak, who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine’s strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US security.

Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff’s connection to Pasternak and George Soros…

I can't resist this graphic from Yakov Apelbaum's site: