Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 05, 2019

A Timeline Of Joe Biden's Intervention Against The Prosecutor General Of Ukraine

This is a working thread intended to be updated when new details come to light.

The Washington Post provided a timeline of the 2015/206 intervention by then-Vice President Joe Biden against the then-General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of the gas company Burisma Holdings which paid Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden at least $50,000 per month for being on its board.

We used that timeline to show that Biden's intervention reached its height shortly after the prosecutor confiscated Zlochevsky houses.

A new report by John Solomon, based on released State Department emails, supports the suspicion that Joe Biden and others intervened against Shokin on behalf of Burisma and on request of his son:

Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly released memos show.

During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.

Solomon points to the same Interfax-Ukraine report about the prosecutor's action against Burisma owner Zlochevsky that we have used to make our case against Biden. Other media have so far ignored that report and several have falsely claimed that the case against Burisma was "dormant" when Biden intervened to get the Prosecutor General fired.

Below is an integrated timeline which combines the one WaPo provided with the new dates from Solomon's reporting and from additional sources. It is intended as a working reference that can be updated when new details come to light. 

Jul 2010-Apr 2012 Mykola Zlochevsky heads the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources in Ukraine. Several oil and gas companies owned by Zlochevsky receive lucrative special drilling permits.  
Feb 23 2014 The U.S. supported Maidan 'regime change' coup overthrows the elected government of Ukraine.  
Mar 2014 The EU blocks funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky's. RFERL
Mar 11 2014 Britain blocks the transfer of $23 million owned by Mykola Zlochevsky companies and opens an investigation against him. Guardian
Spring 2014 Burisma hires Devon Archer and Hunter Biden as members of its board. Archer and Biden together own a firm called Rosemont Seneca Partners. Guardian
May 2014 Rosemont Seneca Partners starts to receive monthly checks of $166,000 from Burisma. JS
Nov 24 2014 U.S. government organ RFERL publishes a video report showing one of Zlochevsky's palaces near Kiev. It notes the Hunter Biden connection. RFERL
Dec 2 2014 Unknown Ukrainian prosecutor writes letter saying that Zlochevsky is not under suspicion. Guardian
Late 2014 Zlochevsky is put on Ukraine's most-wanted list for alleged economic crimes. RFERL
Late 2014 Zlochevsky leaves the Ukraine. Interfax
Jan 21 2015 Referring to the letter by the unknown Ukrainian prosecutor a British court orders the closure of the British case against Zlochevsky and to release the $23m. Guardian
Feb 10 2015 Victor Shokin nominated as Prosecutor General of Ukraine Interfax
Mar 2015 EU lifts blocking of funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky RFERL
May 27 2015 Hunter Biden meets then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a former national security adviser to Joe Biden who was promoted to the No. 2 job at State under then-Secretary John Kerry. JS
July 22 2015 Hunter Biden again meets with the State Department No. 2 Tony Blinken. JS
July 31 2015 Ukraine's prosecutor general issues an arrest warrant against Zlochevsky. RFERL
Sep 2015 Referring to the closed British case then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gives a speech urging Ukrainian prosecutors to do more against corruption. Guardian
Oct 8 2015 Then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland testifies in Congress: “The Prosecutor General’s Office has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.” WaPo
Oct 17 2015 Shokin announces a joint investigation with Britain of the Zlochevsky case. Interfax
Dec 7 2015 Joe Biden holds a press conference in Kiev and announces $190 million to “fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the justice sector.” WaPo
Dec 7/8 2015 According to his then-National Security Advisor Colin Kahl VP Biden withholds the announcement of a $1 billion loan guarantee Ukraine was supposed to receive. WaPo
Dec 8 2015 Joe Biden speaks in the Ukrainian parliament and decried the “cancer of corruption” in the country. “The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform,” he noted. WaPo
End of 2015 Shokin hands one case on Zlochevsky to the U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) Interfax
Jan 20 2016 Biden meets Poroshenko in Davos, Switzerland, when he also presses “the need to continue to move forward on Ukraine’s anti-corruption agenda,” according to a White House statement. Kahl said Biden at that meeting reinforced the linkage between the loan guarantee and the necessary reforms. WaPo
Feb 2 2016 Shokin confiscates several large properties and a Rolls-Royce Phantom owned by Zlochevsky. Interfax
Feb 4 2016 First public announcement of the confiscation of Zlochevsky's properties. Interfax
Feb 4 2016 Hunter Biden starts following Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken on Twitter. JS
Feb 12 2016 Biden speaks to Poroshenko by phone. “The two leaders agreed on the importance of unity among Ukrainian political forces to quickly pass reforms in line with the commitments in its IMF program, including measures focused on rooting out corruption,” the White House said. WaPo
Feb 16 2016 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says that he had advised Shokin to step down. Interfax
Feb 16 2016 Poroshenko announced he had asked Shokin to resign. WaPo
Feb 17 2016 Shokin goes on paid leave. Interfax
Feb 18 2016 Another call takes place between Biden and Poroshenko. WaPo
Feb 19 2016 The presidential press secretary Sviatoslav Tseholko says that Shokin's letter of resignation had arrived at the presidential administration. On the same day, Poroshenko tables a motion in parliament to dismiss Shokin. Interfax
Feb 19 2016 Poroshenko announces he has received Shokin’s resignation letter. It still required parliamentary approval, and Shokin did not go away quietly. WaPo
Feb 19 2016 Biden speaks separately with Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. WaPo
Feb 22/23 2016 Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings, seeks a meeting with then-Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli who oversees international energy issues to discuss ending the corruption allegations against Burisma. JS
Feb 24 2016 A State Department email exchange under the subject line "Burisma" notes that Karen Tramontano especially mentioned Hunter Biden while she tried to get the meeting. JS
Mar 1 2016 Tramontano is scheduled to meet Novelli and that State Department officials are scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev. JS
Mar 2 2016 Hunter Biden’s fellow board member at Burisma, Devon Archer, has a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, had earlier been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment firm. JS
Mar 3 2016 Shokin is back at work. Interfax
Mar 16 2016 Reports emerged that Shokin was back at work after having been on vacation. WaPo
Mar 22 2016 Biden and Poroshenko speak again by phone. WaPo
Mar 29 2016 The Ukrainian parliament, in a 289-to-6 vote, approves Shokin’s dismissal. WaPo
undated "Mr. Zlochevsky’s allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation." NYT
Mar 31 2016 Poroshenko meets with Biden during a trip to Washington, and Biden emphasizes that the loan guarantee was contingent on further reform progress beyond Shokin’s removal. WaPo
Apr 14 2016 Biden and Poroshenko have another call. Biden congratulates the president on his new cabinet and “stressed the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General." WaPo
May 12 2016 Poroshenko nominated Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general. WaPo
May 13 2016 In a phone call, Biden told Poroshenko he welcomed Lutsenko’s appointment. WaPo
Undated "Mr. Zlochevsky’s representatives were pleased by the choice, concluding they could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch’s legal issues, according to the people familiar with the situation." NYT
Jun 2016 Hunter Biden joins Zlochevsky at a Burisma organized event in Morocco. Guardian
Aug 22 2016 Joe Biden tells the Atlantic how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing the "corrupt" Shokin. Atlantic
Sep 2016 Ukraine cancels arrest warrant against Zlochevsky and closes the case against him. Guardian
Jan 12 2017 Ukraine's prosecutor closes the case against Burisma after the company agrees to pay UAH 180 millions of tax liabilities. Interfax
Jan 19 2017 Burisma announces a donation of between $100,000 and 249,999 to the Atlantic Council Guardian
Aug 2017 U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) closes its case against Zlochevsky Interfax
Oct 27 2017 Zlochevsky is estimated to have $535 million in assets, more than double than a year earlier. Interfax
Jan 23 2018 Joe Biden brags publicly how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing Shokin. CFR
Feb 1 2018 After more than three years abroad Zlochevsky returns to Ukraine. Interfax
May 14 2019 Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko says that the Zlochevsky case was reopened "several months ago". Interfax
Jul 2019 Shokin maintains his suspicions about the vice president's motives, accusing Biden of promoting his dismissal for personal reasons. He insists he had "no doubt" Biden wanted him gone in an effort to protect his son's new employer. ABCNews

Posted by b on November 5, 2019 at 20:13 UTC | Permalink


Considering the deep peril the legitimacy of the Outlaw US Empire's electoral system enjoys as Elizabeth Vos reports, why put forth the effort to prise then reveal the truth of Ukrainegate or Russiagate. The DNC will forward whomever it chooses to face Trump in 2020--the court determined that whomever the people choose through the primary and convention exercises doesn't matter as DNC can legally negate that choice. Now I don't mean to belittle the great amount of effort b's done on those issues, but IMO the message within Vos's essay is what must be addressed.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 5 2019 20:34 utc | 1

When put this way it is difficult to not see the corruption. How is Trump asking Ukraine's new president to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the corruption that Trump is asking to be investigated? That will take some mental gymnastics for the establishment's spinmeisters to explain.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 5 2019 20:45 utc | 2

#2 @William Gruff
Totally agree, but want to add one more important point: How is Trump's melding his legitimate and personal interests together in a phone call also more serious than the original war crime of overthrowing the legal Ukrainian government in an armed coup? Biden's corruption is obvious upon logical review of the known facts, but along with ignoring this, the US elites also completely ignore the serious crime of otherthrowing a government (because, such things are not discussed in polite company, one supposes).

Posted by: worldblee | Nov 5 2019 20:53 utc | 3

William Gruff | Nov 5 2019 20:45 utc | 2. Says “How is Trump asking Ukraine's new president to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the crime itself?”

No problem for the TDS afflicted sheeple. Not much different than the position of the sheeple that the exposure of DNC machinations is the crime rather than the crimes of DNC themselves.

Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Nov 5 2019 21:11 utc | 4

Continued from 4

... or the exposure of war crimes by Assange, Manning and John Kiriaku are the crimes rather than the exposed crimes. We live in a surreal world

Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Nov 5 2019 21:17 utc | 5

thanks b... as far as crimes go, biden corrupt is small potatoes and ditto trumps.. the big enchilada is the dynamic leading up to the coup of feb 23 2014.... that is what needs to be examined and of course it won't be, as that would highlight just how corrupt the whole usa system is here... that said, i agree with @1 karolf1 and @ 2 william gruffs comments.. in the greater scheme of things though - meddling in a foreign country, whether it be an election or outright war and everything in between is what the usa has excelled at for as long as i can remember - 60's forward... they are one bullshite country with a bullshite msm completing the propaganda loop that is on display 24/7... i am not sure what it takes to break it.. your work certainly helps!

Posted by: james | Nov 5 2019 21:18 utc | 6

Biden son's case is more than demonstrated right now and, in itself, is not even that impressive: it's just bread & butter patronage corruption, which happens all the time in Western Democracies, at all countries, at all levels.

What's really impressive here is the scale, because an entire country was destroyed overnight. I mean, if a man as powerful as a vice-POTUS is willing to destroy entire nations just to give his son a sinecure, then no country is safe.

Posted by: vk | Nov 5 2019 21:23 utc | 7

worldblee @3

My thinking on the matter is that the Washington establishment is panicking over this relatively small issue because, like pulling a loose end of yarn on a sweater, they fear the whole cover story on the Ukraine covert actions will unravel if the Biden corruption investigation continues.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 5 2019 21:25 utc | 8

The obvious explanation, for the way that the democrats have used all their energies to ensure that the entirety of this sordid scandal is made known to the world is that the John Birch Society entrists, such as the Clintons, are about ready to withdraw from the Democrats altogether and so, like good arsonists, they have poured flammable, explosive material everywhere, confident that a spark will ignite it.
In any case arguing that 'black is white' and 'up is down' is easy compared to convincing the world that Biden, his son, Kerry and all are not totally corrupt.

Posted by: bevin | Nov 5 2019 21:42 utc | 9

Dear B,

According to Wikipedia, Vitaly Yarema was the Ukrainian Prosecutor General from 19 June 2014 to 10 February 2015. He was nominated to the position by President Petro Poroshenko.

A list of Prosecutor General title-holders is here at this link if you need to refer to it.

The odd thing though is that while Yarema was Prosecutor General, he was all very much for bring Mykola Zlochevsky to justice in the London court (depending on who you read, of course).

The U.K. asked Ukraine to investigate whether Burisma’s founder had benefited from criminal dealings with Sergei Kurchenko, a shadowy billionaire who acted as the alleged frontman for the money of Viktor Yanukovych and his older son, Oleksander Yanukovych. Prosecutor General Vityaly Yarema ordered Zlochevsky brought to court, which put him on what Ukrainians call their “wanted list.”

According to that Daily Beast source, Zlochevsky was on the "wanted list" in January 2015.

On reading that Guardian article which you cite, the thought occurred to me that someone other than Yarema must have written and signed that letter sent from the Prosecutor General's office to the UK court, which then ordered the case against Zlochevsky to be dropped. That in itself would be worth an article, as the timeline seems to be a bit confused: did Zlochevsky go on the "wanted list" before the letter was sent to the UK and the money released or did he go on the "wanted list" AFTER the UK court dropped the case against him and ordered the release of the $23 million?

Posted by: Jen | Nov 5 2019 21:49 utc | 10

I agree about the Voss article, but there is nothing new in it is there? The DNC 'defence' has been in the public domain ever since it was first annunciated. As to the absolute scandal of the disenfranchiement of 100,000 Democrats in Bernie's hometown, it was obvious on the night that it was this which allowed HC to steal the New York Primary.
The problem was that the Sanders campaign seems to have done nothing about it- it is hard to believe that, back in 2016, they were thinking of 2020 and running Sanders again.
Were not the White primaries, a DNC favourite at the time, banned on just these grounds that public money and resources could not be used to disenfranchise large numbers of people?
You are right that the story, which reminds us that it was the democrats who invented dirty tricks and the NY Democrats, who used to meet at Tammany Hall, were on the cutting edge of electoral corruption, is one that cannot be too widely discussed. A discussion to be followed by prison terms.

Posted by: bevin | Nov 5 2019 21:52 utc | 11

once again this Ukraine story shows that its not the government, its not the structure of the government, its not even the functions of the government, but instead its is the actors that run the government and the actors that benefit from the government being run by the actors-in-charge that make a strong case that an independent non governmental auditor is needed (one paid from a % of the taxes collected but one that answers only to the HR courts). So the government would not pay the auditors any salaries since the auditors are the governed. In other words, any qualified voter would be an eligible Auditor. Such people (auditors) would have the right to audit the-conduct of any person claiming or benefiting from a government interest.
The independent HR court would hear all charges made by any HR auditor. All persons claiming or benefiting in some way from a government interest would be subject to the jurisdiction of the HR courts. The HR court would be empowered to hear a claim of wrongful behavior made against any government person (elected, appointed, bureaucrats, military and contractors) and if the court agrees substantive facts exist, then the court would assemble a case, impanel a jury (from the ranks of the governed) and instruct that jury to hear the charges and to develop the case, and to decide on the innocence or guilt of the person charged, and if guilty then to decide on the penalty.
Important here is that the HR rights courts would hear cases against individuals that involve corruption, fraud, theft, self dealing, negligence and treason.. the HR rights courts are not government, they are courts made up of judges and juries that are appointed by the governed people.

Posted by: snake | Nov 5 2019 22:19 utc | 12

Right on cue Sondland changes gears from drive to reverse:

Sondland Acknowledges 'Quid Pro Quo' In Reversal To Trump-Ukraine Testimony

House Democrats on Tuesday released excerpts of closed-door depositions with former US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, as well as revised testimony from US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland which was a complete reversal from what he said in text messages revealed last month as well as prior testimony.

In them, Sondland reveals in four new pages of sworn testimony he told a top Ukrainian official that a meeting with President Trump may be contingent upon its new administration committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to the New York Times.

Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. -New York Times

Bloomberg reports "Sondland testified that a promise by Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son and the 2016 election was a condition that “would have to be complied with” for the country’s leaders to get a meeting with Trump."

"That was my understanding," he said.

SO if that is Sondland's [mis]understanding, let's compare. Read his Sept 9 text message to Taylor.

Pat Buchanan wants to know Where are the high crimes?

The image of Biden and son in link, speaks truth. Take a look.

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?[.]

According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:

The president imperiled our “national security” by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine — the very weapons President Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.

Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine altogether?

The essence of Trump’s crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.

Again, where is the body of the crime? [.]

By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko’s regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?

Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.[.]

Posted by: Likklemore | Nov 5 2019 22:32 utc | 13


A week ago I commented on the Vindman story:

US foreign policy is driven by "diaspora politics" - double traitors who first betrayed their home country and are now betraying the US in the name of their nationalist Nazi ideology and their desire to wage war on Russia.

My friend George Eliason has expanded on the topic.

Alexander Vindman – Why Diaspora Ukrainians are Driving Sedition

Was it Vindman’s American patriotism or Diaspora nationalism that led him to share the Oval Office transcript with Ukraine’s president?

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Nov 5 2019 22:40 utc | 14

Pales into insignificance compared to the China $1.5 billion and the partnership with Whitey Bulger's nephew. Or Hillary's Uranium One deal.

I think right now Ukraine is a red herring, pushed by the Dems to confuse matters, knowing that clarity is very difficult.

There is a ton of Dem dirt out there, and it is best not to get into details.
for example

Posted by: Michael Droy | Nov 5 2019 22:46 utc | 15

bevin @11--

Thanks for your reply! Did you note the number of people who committed multiple felonies that have yet to be prosecuted years now after-the-fact? The lack of justice being applied to those who broke the law and violated the public trust is also a big issue itself that I mentioned on the week in review. The bottom line: No democracy + no justice = no legitimacy, which appears to be the main point. I just finished listening to this interview with Dr. Hudson where in the last few minutes he says the DNC in 2020 aims at electing Donald Trump, which seems to be the consensus arrived at by us barflies and with which I agree. What Hudson doesn't touch on, nor is he asked, is what can be done to overturn the Reagan Revolution which installed the current policy direction, although we can make a few assumptions based on his preferences for Sanders and Gabbard and the movement to deal with student debt relief.

My comment to the article wasn't optimistic and has yet to be posted. I don't really have anything of substance to add to what b's proving about Biden as I've already called him out for his Capital Crimes and the usual corruption. Maybe I ought to throw up my arms in disgust and adopt a Don't Worry; Be Happy/What, Me Worry? escapist attitude and ignore it all for my remaining days and party like it's 1999. Too bad Styx didn't offer a solution to having Too Much Time on My Hands aside for that being a calamity for my sanity.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 5 2019 22:47 utc | 16

Thanks for the posting b

Reading comments including from Likklemore | Nov 5 2019 22:32 utc | 13 it seems that both sides are guilty as can be.

Here is to hoping that both sides continue the battle until the whole treasonous house of cards collapses.

Hopefully then the masses can see that behind that house of cards are the global cult of elite that own the tools of global private finance and humanity can evolve to a more just and equitable world with public finance at the core of the social contract.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 5 2019 22:47 utc | 17

I offer my interpretation of the timeline.

General-Prosecutor Victor Shokin was being pressured -- mostly by the USA -- to prosecute corruption more effectively.

In response to such pressure, Shokin initiated an investigation of Mykola Zlochevsky on October 17, 2015. It seems that Britain had established an investigation of Zlochevsky in 2014, had suspended that investigation on January 21, 2015, but then resumed that investigation in October 2015. Shokin joined that British investigation on October 17, 2015.

It seems further that the USA eventually took unknown actions to prevent that joint British-Ukrainian investigation of Zlochevsky.

On December 7-8, 2015, Vice President Biden indicated that a large US grant of aid money would be conditional. However, the conditions seem to be secret.

In this situation, before the end of December 2015, General-Prosecutor Shokin transfered the Zlochevsky investigation to the so-called National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), which essentially was a creature of the US Government.

The situation seemed to remain quiet through the month of January 2016. On February 2, however, Shokin seized some of Zlochevsky's property, even though the NABU was supposed to be managing the Zlochevsky case.

Sholin's seizure of Zlochevsky's property on February 2 sparked a US-Ukraine crisis. The US (i.e. the Bidens) felt it had been double-crossed by Shokin.

Although the property seizure occurred on February 2, it was not announced publicly until February 4. On that same day, Hunter Biden began following the Twitter account of US Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who managed Ukrainian affairs. (I wonder if Blinken communicated in code to Hunter Biden by means of Twitter.)

On February 12, Vice President Joe Biden talked with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by telephone and ordered the firing of Shokin. The firing essentially happened later that same day.

Joe Biden's story about waiting for an airplane due to take off in six hours might be false or might refer to an airplane taking off in some country other than Ukraine.

Posted by: Mike Sylwester | Nov 5 2019 22:49 utc | 18

bevin @11

A discussion to be followed by prison terms.

Several (numerous?) topics so qualify. Either they're scarcely hinted at, or the lies and misdirections prevail. Applause for anyone brave enough to name the first three forbidden items that come to mind.

Posted by: Evelyn | Nov 5 2019 22:51 utc | 19

Are vlochevsky, kolomoisky, and pinchbuk partners in crime?
$1.8 billion in imf loans "disappeared" in koilomoiski's
privat bank. After that privat bank was nationalized and kolomoiski
fled to the us. Was this how vlochevsky's asets doubled? Coincidentally
the chinese firm investment in rosemont seneca was over $1 billion. Some
have speculated that the bidens could have become billionaires from this.
Was the chinese firm a pass through for the embezzled $1.8 billion imf loan?

Posted by: evilempire | Nov 5 2019 22:54 utc | 21

The Fat Boy and Biden are looking a bit grim on this one.

Posted by: Duncan Idaho | Nov 5 2019 23:35 utc | 22

Come on' folks, there are no Dems, there are no Repubs, there are no Independants ,only reps who take the $ offered by the wealthy. In the U$A today, the party of $ owns the system. Case closed. We get who they want. The rules have been changed to favor them. Vote if you want, it's good therapy,but, the system is rigged.

Sanders, Warren, and Tulsi are history. Want some reality? Read this;

Posted by: ben | Nov 6 2019 0:05 utc | 23

@ psychohistorian 17

"Here is to hoping that both sides continue the battle until the whole treasonous house of cards collapses."

exactly. A huge mistake the Dems made; all to deflect from Ukraine funding. Recall reports claiming Hillary said 'IF he wins, we will all hang"

Oh dear. Zerohedge just posted the latest report from John Solomon
Obama Admin Coached Anti-Trump Ukraine Ambassador On Biden Scandal

The latest report from journalist John Solomon reveals that the Obama State Department saw Joe and Hunter Biden's brewing Burisma scandal as a "Biden problem" during the 2016 US election, and specificialy coached now-recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on how to answer awkward questions about it. [.]

Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about “Burisma and Hunter Biden.”
In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch’s Senate confirmation hearing, the department’s Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer.

“Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President’s son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?,” the draft Q&A asked.
The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: “For questions on Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden’s office.”[.]

Posted by: Likklemore | Nov 6 2019 0:08 utc | 24

Creepy Joe is guilty.

Posted by: Josh | Nov 6 2019 0:28 utc | 25

The Media has created a story whose purpose it is to keep the public focused on some small details of goings-on in Ukraine mostly since 2014 and NOT the fact that this is a clear example of a US backed coup which destabilized the country enough to allow the US Corporate jackals in to strip off the booty. THAT is what all the participants in this scheme want to keep secret. Why? Because the American citizens benefit not one bit from any of this. Change will require something major to trigger it.

Posted by: Linda Amick | Nov 6 2019 0:28 utc | 26

I agree with previous posters that the real crime was the 2014 coup, and people like Hillary, Victoria Noland and Biden are the greater criminals. But let's not make this a Dem vs Rep thing. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war in Iraq to steal their oil. Both war parties supported Poroshenko and unending anti-Russian invective. It is from that mindset that they argue over whether conditioning military aid to Ukraine constitutes quid pro quo.

In the meantime I wonder if Zelensky, who was elected over Porky with an end the war platform, is thinking "Why do these idiots think they can negotiate by offering me something I absolutely do not want?"

Posted by: Citizen621 | Nov 6 2019 0:36 utc | 27

Noland should be Noland - you know "Fock the EU!"

Posted by: Citizen621 | Nov 6 2019 0:40 utc | 28

Can't believe I misspelled Nuland twice. Damn autocorrect!

Posted by: Citizen621 | Nov 6 2019 0:43 utc | 29

@ 29: don't sweat the misspelling, we get it.

Posted by: ben | Nov 6 2019 0:48 utc | 30

I guess Caitlin Johnstone recently summarized it best:

"Remember when voters in 2016 were like 'can we please have even one major candidate who doesn’t have something seriously wrong with them?', and the entire US political system was all 'LOL nope,' and then nobody burned that system to the ground and flushed it down the toilet? Good times."

Except IMO there were thousands of people willing and ready to burn down the system just as there are now--that's what ought to happen to things that are corrupt: they get exposed as illegitimate and get torched by the public is a fit of righteous outrage and exact justice collectively.

But that didn't happen within the Outlaw US Empire in 2016, nor did it happen when Obama backstabbed millions, broke the law he was supposed to enforce and gave billions to fraudulent banksters. Most all political riots--not police riots--during my life were against racism and its associated injustices long ongoing. Within the Outlaw US Empire historically, corruption in politics is as traditional as apple pie, meaning the people are mostly inured to its occurrence. As with customary bribery in some nations, political corruption is seen as a normal happening usually of little consequence until something morally repulsive occurs to raise awareness again. The problem of course is that corruption is always morally repulsive. Perhaps such leniency says more about a nation's public than anything else--tons of corruption's tolerated just as the killing of millions of innocents overseas is tolerated/abided/excused. Guess it's time for some Victory Gin as there's not much more to say.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 6 2019 0:57 utc | 31

I think you've left out the Vietnam era, karlof1 - there were certainly riots against that war plus there was l968 in Chicago Democratic Convention. I'd call both of those political. And I would call the Occupy movement at least anti-political in its focus on the banksters. Plus protests against the invasion of Iraq. Those two latter 'thrusts' by the citizenry were indeed handled oppressively and not covered adequately or at all in the case of protests against the invasion and/or other political events. Just because they weren't covered doesn't mean they didn't happen or weren't part of the general malaise. Trump got elected on that premise. And just because you don't see it on TV doesn't mean the general public isn't totally unhappy with the way things are.

Do you see happy faces? I don't.

Posted by: juliania | Nov 6 2019 1:20 utc | 32

@ 23 Ben

That is the hands-down best summary of what is going on that I have seen. Hedges' take on the Deep State matches up with what was openly declared in the Dem party (that they would fund Trump if Warren or Sanders got the nomination).

Thanks for posting

Posted by: sorghum | Nov 6 2019 2:05 utc | 33

Is Biden corrupt. Probably.

Does this timeline prove it?


Will Biden drop out of the race?

Hell no.

Hillary ran under a worse cloud and (we are told) got 3 million more votes than Trump. Democrats don't care. They'll vote for the less evil and lose (again) because they are morons, dipshits, and moral relativists with their head up their asses. And don't get me started on Hillary and the media ...

Wake up! It's all kayfabe. Enjoy the show.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

I have this nagging feeling that what really matters isn't the timeline but who the heck owns Burisma? That isn't discussed much.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 6 2019 2:08 utc | 34

Exactly, JR. The very limited amount of reporting on that quickly led to Jewish oligarchs and that has been studiously ignored since. Since then it has been an endless shit show of Biden's corruption and how the US foreign policy is handled with everyone trying to thinly slice the corruption of DC so as to only smear the other side.

Posted by: sorghum | Nov 6 2019 2:19 utc | 35

ben @23, sorghum @33

Yeah the first line should be a shocker to Kool-Aid drinkers:

Our democracy is not in peril—we do not live in a democracy.

But he fails to see the kayfabe, though he comes close with:

We, the American public, are spectators. An audience.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

I wonder if he DOES see the kayfabe has to pull some punches because people are not ready for such truth.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 6 2019 2:20 utc | 36

@ 34 jr.. you asked, lol..

Since the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, the international energy group Burisma has been providing systematic and comprehensive assistance to the defenders of the Fatherland.

Among the military, whom the Burisma Group has supported since 2014, is the Poltava Special Purpose Police Battalion, which has repeatedly served in the war zone in the Donbass.

from one of their press releases - being the good nazis biden requested of them..

Posted by: james | Nov 6 2019 2:23 utc | 37

james 37

AFAIK, Burisma supported regaining Donbas because that's where the fracking opportunity is.

Who else was an ardent supporter of regaining the Donbas? Kolomoyskyi, who is also militantly pro-Israel, and is rumored to be the real owner (or part owner?) of Burisma.

Biden is also a Zionist and what his son made is peanuts compared to what Biden has/could make if he plays along. Obama is said to have made $70 million after leaving the Presidency and has just bought a $15 million home.

And where else is a fracking opportunity sought by a corrupt company that is connected to corrupt politicians? Golan Heights and Genie Energy.

PS For anyone interested, there was a relevant discussion threat on a previous (but recent) post that b wrote about Burisma.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 6 2019 2:48 utc | 38


I liked Dr. Hudson's remarks concerning that DNC's quest for a candidate most sure to lose to Trump. This of course accounts for their hysterical fear of Tulsi Gabbard, as she is the only one who would be certain to beat him! The DNC will probably be willing, this time around, to let Bernie sheepdog on into the general election if that's what it takes to stop Tulsi. It's very sad to see the would be left media falling in line with the Jacobin/Intercept/Omidyar psyops regime. The one slim hope is that actual voters not controlled by any of the usual gatekeepers might overwhelm the DNC rigging machine in early primaries. I'm encouraged whenever I'm out on the real street I frequently overhear people mentioning her name and passersby chime in. Don't hear a thing about any of the mediocrities supported by the DNC and the press.

Posted by: NOBTS | Nov 6 2019 3:16 utc | 39

Posted by: ben | Nov 6 2019 0:05 utc | 23

From the Chris Hedges article you linked to: "The deep state committed the greatest strategic blunder in American history when it invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq."

The sentence quoted is an example of the murky self-assured but dubious 'wordscape' that we are so inundated by. This is not to imply that the author doesn't make many sensible points in this particular article, or to dismiss his work more generally. In my opinion he does lots of good work.

Note the use of the cryptic abstraction "deep state" to describe the 'perpetrator' of the 'invasions and occupations'.

Note the use of the abstract term "greatest" to describe the "strategic blunder". One can declare without deserving even a raised eyebrow 'that was the greatest day of my life!' or that was greatest number of apples I've ever eaten at one sitting, but never again!" But how does one calibrate those two wars of aggression as the "greatest" whatever?

Note that these particlular wars of aggression, the supreme crime, and both not coincidentally based on lies upon lies, have been verbally downgraded to "invasions". As in, say, the Normandy invasion, or an invasion of grasshoppers? And all the horrors that followed the wars of aggression are condensed by the summary word "occupation". Many of us have occupations.

And for who were these "strategic blunders?" From the perspective of the MIC, and PNAC, and 'strategic positioning' re Earthly heroin flows, say, perhaps these were "strategic blessings". Or even diabolically cunning?

The point I'm making here is that even in the 'good articles', even in 'noble efforts' its pretty hard not to slip into, what? Let's call it, Empire Speak. Or is that Swamp Speak?

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Nov 6 2019 4:20 utc | 40

@ Robert Snefjella with the analysis of the wording of the Chris Hedges article that ben linked to

Nice work but I want to add that the real reason for going after Iraq and Afghanistan was because they were not yet owned and subservient to the Western private banking cult.

Like Libya before Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton served her masters.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 6 2019 4:41 utc | 41

@ 42 Rboert
Personally, I don't care to dissect Hedges word choices. Those invasion were the greatest mistake, because they broke the US public image, its military, and its economy. No, not directly, but those overextensions were the watershed moments. While it has been quite lucrative for certain parties since then, it has been a huge quagmire and literal sand in the military's gears. It also destroyed the invincible image of the US military. Trillions of dollars, thousands of troops, millions of civilians and yet we are all negotiating to stay in Afghanistan against troops with tire scandals, no air force, and very limited mechanization.

@ 43 psycho I agree that the banking, and gold in particular, were reason for destroying the countries. Along with human trafficking, Sumerian artifacts, takfiri recruitment, etc.

Posted by: Sorghum | Nov 6 2019 4:55 utc | 42

sorghum #35

Exactly, JR. The very limited amount of reporting on that quickly led to Jewish oligarchs and that has been studiously ignored since. Since then it has been an endless shit show of Biden's corruption and how the US foreign policy is handled with everyone trying to thinly slice the corruption of DC so as to only smear the other side.

There are some sites that think about these things.

We’ve gone through a lot of news sources to see if we couldn’t figure out what is going on in Ukraine as to why the Democrats, led by Jewish congressional representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who leads the impeachment committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is on the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Eliot Engel (D-New York) along with 21 other Jewish Democratic congressional representatives all calling for the impeachment of President Trump because of his phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine.

This site seems devoted to looking for links of this nature, but is often sketchy IMO.

Where is O when you need an obsessive analysis.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 6 2019 5:13 utc | 43

So if the Biden's and Rosemont Seneca were in Ukraine stealing IMF funds,
what were they stealing in China?
Do they have no shame? Or is that Whitey Bulger's clan ethics at play.
Is all currency ok as long as its stolen?
How much bitcoin can they steal and convert or is that story yet to be told?

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 6 2019 5:20 utc | 44

Jack Rabbit @ 34, 38:

Did you say Ihor Kolomoisky is rumoured to be owner or part-owner of Burisma Holdings? Wonder no more ...

Yves Smith / Naked Capitalism reposted an old 2014 article recently on Ihor Kolomoisky and his ownership of Burisma Holdings through his Privat Group.

That is the oldest trick in the book: owning a company as a subsidiary of another company that you own. The wonder is that Kolomoisky didn't insert another layer of another subsidiary between Privat Group and Burisma Holdings to cover his tracks even more.

Posted by: Jen | Nov 6 2019 5:28 utc | 45

Oh my goodness ... here's a juicy tidbit from January 2017 to be filed away for future reference:

The largest private gas producer in Ukraine is establishing relations with the new US administration.

The Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group, Ukraine’s largest independent gas producer, have signed a partnership agreement. The Atlantic Council, with the support of Burisma, will develop transatlantic relations programs with a focus on energy security in Europe and the world, the company said in an official press release.

For the Burisma Group, this is a new stage in the development of cooperation between the United States and European countries together with such an influential world institution as the Atlantic Council.

Relations with Ukraine and future programs with the Burisma Group will be overseen by an authoritative diplomat, US Ambassador to Ukraine (2003-2006) and Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center (structure under the Atlantic Council) John Herbst.

“Support and cooperation with Burisma will allow us to expand our program development activities in Ukraine and create new platforms for discussing important and relevant issues,” said John Herbst.

It is symbolic that the collaboration between the Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group coincided with the launch of the new US Presidential Administration Donald Trump. According to experts, this will allow for more efficient implementation of new joint projects in the energy sector and gain support from one of the most respected and influential organizations in the United States. The conclusion of an agreement between Burisma and the Atlantic Council and the full implementation of joint projects became possible after all charges against Burisma Group and its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky were dropped.

According to Mykola Zlochevsky, president of the Burisma Group, the Atlantic Council plays a key role in Ukraine in building transatlantic relations, democracy and energy security. "Ambassador Herbst has been and continues to be the lawyer of Ukraine, and Burisma is pleased to be able to support the work of the ambassador and the Atlantic Council," said Nikolai Zlochevsky.

The Atlantic Council (US Atlantic Council) is the largest American non-governmental analytical center for international relations of the Atlantic community, headquartered in Washington. It is one of the most influential non-governmental organizations in the United States, operates ten regional centers and functional programs that deal with issues of international security and global economic development.

The Atlantic Council and Burisma Holdings working together!

Posted by: Jen | Nov 6 2019 5:33 utc | 46

A. Kravetz was prosecutor who sent letter in early Dec 2014 that was used in UK.

Posted by: Stephen McIntyre | Nov 6 2019 5:43 utc | 47

As I wrote in April 2015, there are very strong indications that Foreign Affairs Representative for the EU Catherine Ashton, IMF boss Christine Lagarde and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland provided the united US/EU media front for the Ukraine coup, with Biden, Kerry and John McCain too publicity hungry to remain in the background like they were almost certainly supposed to.

Posted by: Bryan Hemming | Nov 6 2019 5:48 utc | 48

Jen #47

Thank you for that link. Rolling up the naked capitalism story is this rather more profound analysis from the Saker. It is also linked to in the abel danger site I referenced earlier.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 6 2019 6:24 utc | 49

In case no one else has posted these, two stories in the British MSM this morning about Boeing:

Boeing 737 cracks: Ryanair grounds three planes due to cracking between wing and fuselage

Exclusive: budget Irish carrier is the latest airline worldwide to be affected by ‘pickle fork’ cracking, but has not disclosed the problem

And this one on hurried and botched construction of 787's in Georgia plant:

Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

Posted by: johnf | Nov 6 2019 7:14 utc | 50

Something that really shocks me about Ukraine is like the video about the kitsch palace of the Zlochevsky guy, the neighbors on the other side of the river complain about not being able to swim across anymore, as they used to do, but the whole interview is in russian¡¡¡¡, I mean, it is supossed to be Kiev, not the east and everybody speaks in a language that does not have official status anymore. It is like a virtual country that wants to impose a distorted view of itself. Just imagine for a minute if California became independent and all of the sudden the official language is spanish, all relations at schools, hospitals, state centers, banks, etc. etc. are to be held in spanish only. Well, that's happening in that new "liberated" for democracy country, the priceless work of Nulands, Bidens et al, plus all the killing, that goes without saying.

Posted by: Paco | Nov 6 2019 8:21 utc | 51

Thanks bin @ 23 for article it noted =>America’s representative appointed by the electoral college into the position of CEO of the USA interpreted the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force==> <=to mean=> executive privilege includes the right to assassinate US Citizens? WOW! Does that means person of wealth, corporation or foreign government can pay to get the USA to assassinate whom ever?

The article says: The democratic institutions, including the press, ..have been neutered. It notes that the Wealth and power once attributable to Americans is now consoliated inside and located behind the access controlled walls of privately owned corporate enterprise; where the dark hole of board room policy establishes how the corporation wealth and power will rape its next million or so victims...? the article discusses how America's wealth is eqally divided between 99% (wealth of 350,000,000 Americans) = and 1% (wealth of 35,000 in control of America) .

But I do not subscribe to the idea that it is deep state that is the problem. I think the problem lay in the construction of the constitution of the United States.. the deep state is just using the highly skewed distribution of power [between the governed and the governors placed in the constitution) to accommodate their for profit purposes. The constitution was never intended to protect governed Americans from exploitation by those who govern; its purpose was to protect those with the wealth and power from the Americans its federalism was designed to govern. Its pure propaganda that the constitution is to be interpreted as a democratic win for the governed.

First the constitution emerging from Philadelphia in 1787 did not contain the bill of rights, a fact prominately exposed when the states refused to ratify the constitution their own representatives at the Philadephia conventioned voted for. The states said, no to ratification unless and until, as a minimium, the first ten amendments were added. <= I assert the founders and their then corporations d\n want the governed to have any privileges or rights.

Secondly, it was not until the 17th amendment(1913) that Americans were empowered to vote for who would fill any of the 100 highly paid, very powerful, US Senate jobs, even today, no American can vote for but 2 senators each. <=to date Americans have no say by vote as to who shall be paid to be the President or VP of the USA [<=the electoral colleges determines the President and the states each appoint whomever they wish to the electoral college]. America is a democracy; the USA is a Republic, the states are trickle down versions of the USA.

Thirdly, ratification was invented and placed in the constitution to avoid offering all Americans the chance to decide for themselves if Americans wanted federalism or states rights, or if the excluded persons (Indians and 3/5 of other persons) wanted to be excluded or governed by federalism (federalism destroys states rights); had a popular vote been taken, I believe federalism w\h\b soundly defeated). Ratification (Article VII)<=regime changed [1788] the Articles of Confederation Government (AOCG: Hanson first President of the USA in Congress) [it was the AOCG that defeated the British Armies in America [1777] and that contributed the 1776 Declaration of Independence to the world, not the USA]. After regime change; USA, old British wealth and corporate cronies were back in charge of governing America. Today they might be called the deep state.

Fourthly, We, the American public, are spectators. An audience by Jackrabbit @ 36..

Fifthly, no president I am familiar with, has done in office what was promised in the campaign.

I think the governed must look to the constitution to see how the governors have made this happen.
My take is that civil liberties never existed in America.. the only civil liberties that Americans have ever enjoyed were those expressed in contractual promises (offered in the first 10 <=amendments of the COUS) and that courts were obliged to affirm because it would defeat the propaganda that such rights actually exist. How enforceable do you think a promise in a contract are that governors will not infringe the human rights promises made therein? Over 200 years, during war time, the governors have suspended such rights and during normal times the only way to prevent infringement has often been to engage lawyers and costly expensive courts.. to remind the governors that it is important for propaganda purposes to honor the promises made in the amendments to the constitution? Its a joke to assume that a clause in an amended contract would be honored when it is inconvenient to the promissors; ie. Julian Assange?

even in the 'good articles', even in 'noble efforts' its pretty hard not to slip into, what? Let's call it, Empire Speak. Or is that Swamp Speak? by: Robert Snefjella @ 42 <= the mind control weapons that fire bullets made of propaganda are extremely powerful..

Posted by: snake | Nov 6 2019 9:38 utc | 52

Re posted by: snake | Nov 6 2019 9:38 utc | 52

One of the ongoing impediments to broad American public understanding of the US Constitution is its elevation to 'sacrosanct' status, thus placing it above critical discussion. Its 'supreme' status renders thoughts of ongoing improvement disabled. And then you have the mantra of mass continual frequent typically hypocritical/false/programmed swearing of allegiance to it, and also, of all things, the linked elevation into 'symbolic deity' of a flag. This is helped along by a frequent stirring rendition of the national anthem, which has bombs exploding for the land of the "brave and the free".

(As an aside note of some curiousity and immeasurable impact, in Canada there is much swearing of allegiance to the very aged titular head of the dysfunctional 'Royal Family' of the UK.) Sigh.

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Nov 6 2019 11:37 utc | 53

Dems think Bernie better on MOST policy issues, but will vote for Biden in hopes he dethrones Trump – poll

The same case happens in the UK (with Corbyn). They want the policies, but they don't want "socialism".

This is the great contradiction of the USA and other First World countries: they know they need to reform, but they don't want to give up the good things that capitalist imperialism gave them. Therefore, they want the best of both worlds.

Posted by: vk | Nov 6 2019 11:46 utc | 54

Great, true comment, vk. The people of America are willing participants in the American Dream, aka The American Death Cult. Let's give the American People full credit for the horror show they've inflicted on the world. They willfully chose this and continue to choose this and that is why they embrace horrific figures like Trump, Hillary, Biden, etc..

But the American People do have a better angel. They also want community. They want to see themselves as individually and collectively good. They want to believe that they are on the light side of the Force, not the dark side of the Force, so to speak. How it plays out is that they want the elites to tell them lies, sweet little lies...

For me the turning point of America, at least of the America that I've seen, was the Iraq War. The Libya War can be seen as a second stage of that war; same with the Syria War. It's not that such acts of global mayhem have been worse than what America has done before. It's that the American System has embraced the evil more knowingly than ever before, it seems to me. No one can credibly claim that they didn't see the US knowingly lie its way into war vs. Iraq. No one can credibly call that a just war.

when a corrupt system lies to itself about its corruption there is some hope. When it knows it is corrupt and embraces this anyway then there is no hope. The Ukraine controversey we are seeing play its way out now typifies and illustrates this state of affairs. What Trump did was brutal and corrupt, yet his fans continue to defend him and even to defend this. What Biden did was far far more brutal and corrupt, yet the Dems continue to defend him and what he did. Biden helped plunge a country into chaos and then feasted on the corpse. The Ukraine controversey is a journey into the heart of our darkness.

We desperately need a bringer of light. Could it be Tulsi Gabbard? Perhaps, if she has the guts to turn away from Indian and Israeli nationalism and if the people choose to support her truth telling. It's a long shot, but she might be our last hope.

As for Biden? Well I suppose he's a placeholder for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Paul | Nov 6 2019 12:22 utc | 55

We've already discussed this on the topic about American extreme pragmatism:

The US Military Is a Socialist Organization: Affordable housing and food, tuition assistance, and universal health care are hallmarks of a social welfare system—and life in the armed forces.

The USA is a capitalist society. However, as Marx demonstrated in his opus, the development of capitalism tends to socialism. Socialism cannot be born out of manorialism or antiquity, but only from capitalism.

The American elite knows this, so they came up with a very interesting strategy: they keep the rest of the world down, in a permanent state of destruction and rebuild (groundhog day mode); and, at home, they try to preserve a minimum of industrial dynamism and life quality for their masses with "domesticated and restricted socialism". FDR did it during 1938-1944 and it worked; after the end of Bretton Woods and the establishment of the Dollar Standard, they adopted restricted socialism in a specific sector -- the Military -- in order to maintain its industrial and innovation capacity going in face of its inexorable tendency of "financialization".

Although the Pentagon by itself is socialist, the USA remains capitalist because of the way the Pentagon relates to the rest of the nation: it takes the infinite pool of taxpayer money (so the profit motivation is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who are capitalist and thus have the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into money-capital through a socialist institution.

However, this comes at a price for the capitalists: as profits go down over time (as Marx also scientifically demonstrated), the share of the Pentagon on the overall American economy rises, thus rising the "socialist piece of the pie". Heterodox estimates put the Pentagon social architecture at 10% of the American economy; most still put it at around 5%, and some of then put it at an insignificant 3%. If think that, if you take out the ficitious part of the capitalist economy (i.e. Wall St.), the figures are much closer to the 10%, probably even more.

Posted by: vk | Nov 6 2019 13:22 utc | 56

@56 -- "... it [Pentagon] takes the infinite pool of taxpayer money (so the profit motivation is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who are capitalist and thus have the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into money-capital through a socialist institution."

State-base 'capitalism' just like China!

The only additional point is that a sizable % of the socialist $$$'s (more Fed than taxpayer these days) also flow from said funds into lobbying and then into the pockets of the politician du jour. The corrupt Clinton's were not the exception -- rather the rule. Was this systemic corruption not referred to previously as the military-industrial-congressional complex?

Posted by: imo | Nov 6 2019 13:39 utc | 57

@ Posted by: imo | Nov 6 2019 13:39 utc | 58

No, it would be China if the contractors themselves were owned by the Government.

China is pretty much the polar opposite of the USA: it has a socialist system with some restricted pockets of capitalism. Capitalism there is restricted to the special economic zones, and private enterprise is restricted to non-strategic sectors.

That's why China's tax rates are actually lowering, not rising.

Posted by: vk | Nov 6 2019 13:59 utc | 58

@2 If you recall the media explained that Joe Biden's corruption is really Joe Biden fighting corruption. They create their own reality. We are just supposed to swallow it. The CFR video doesn't matter. Just like Victoria Nuland's call. Snowden's revelations, or the volumes of wikileaks documents proving the enormity of US self described "elite" corruption

Posted by: Goldhoarder | Nov 6 2019 14:01 utc | 59

Have we ruled out kholomiski as burisma owner?

Posted by: Paul Damascene | Nov 6 2019 15:22 utc | 60

Thank you. Spoke (to a great degree) my mind.

Posted by: Jon_in_AU | Nov 6 2019 16:15 utc | 61

Likewise, as above. Thank you.
I am learning new things at a prodigious rate thanks to all of the commentators here.

Posted by: Jon_in_AU | Nov 6 2019 16:27 utc | 62

juliania @32--

I'd written a long detailed reply that I was about to post when my computer locked-up and I lost my entire effort, and that ended my contributions yesterday. Of the many observations I made, this IMO was the most important--When MLK was murdered, blacks nationwide rioted; but when JFK and RFK were murdered, nothing of the sort occurred. I'll also reinforce the notion of people rioting as the vast majority of what's deemed a riot by Media was in fact a Police Riot as they run amok amidst peaceful protesters just as they would do against striking workers, of which there's a long bloody history of massacres.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 6 2019 17:06 utc | 63

The results of this years off-year elections were surprising in several states--Virginia and Kentucky being the more remarkable, particularly Kentucky which Trump won overwhelmingly in 2016. Otherwise, party balance remained the same. Very good recap here. Only one instance of election fraud was reported at the previous link by Ohio Republicans.

Oh, and the woman who gave Trump the Bird was elected to her first public office in Virginia.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 6 2019 17:28 utc | 64


The atlantic council seems to be an extensive network directorate
of the empire, one step or more up from the low level "deepstate"
and intelligence agency functionaries, kind of like SPECTRE. Burisma
is turning out to be a classic Intelligence Operations nexus and money
laundering front company. No wonder the imps and agents of the deepstate
reacted with such ferocity. Trump poked the hornet's nest, because it seems
that exposing intelligence operations of the empire, no matter how evil or
corrupt, is a line that cannot be crossed. A nugget of info that some might
have missed is that the pronunciation of Ciaramella's name was spelled out
as a clue to decipher the text between strok and paige that they had a CI(confidential
informant) or spy named charlie in the whitehouse.

Posted by: evilempire | Nov 6 2019 21:25 utc | 65

Thanks for your response, karlof1; sorry that your computer reneged on you. You make a good point about the difference between JFK, RFK and MLK murders, though I wouldn't call the riots for the latter political but rather people oriented and very much in the vein of the civil rights struggle. Those tragedies for me and many were as awful as anything gets. I never saw my husband cry except at a friend's suicide and at the death of JFK. WE felt RFK's death just as deeply, and that of MLK too, but they were part of the first shock. There was a song: "Has anyone here seen...? The significance of that was the innocence of the nation as a whole at that time. Shock and Awe in a very real sense. Now it is hard to realize but then it was - I dare to say it - catastrophic.

But Vietnam WAS political in that we knew, everyone knew, who in government was responsible for it. And from then on protests continued - and government increasingly organized against it with terrible consequences for those protesting. And media shut down dissent. Suddenly, when the dems got back into power they stopped being the nice guys with the good arguments against war; and the arguments stopped!!! The press stopped giving those arguments; it didn't express righteous indignation in support of the public's right to protest. There were still protesters, but you had to be brave. I remember a student was peppersprayed into his face, throat at close quarters. The government imposed its will. It stopped allowing embedding of reporters in the wars; many reporters suddenly found themselves targetted - remember? Wrongdoers with money and power simply got a slap on the wrist. If you were homeless and wandered where you could find a warm place to sleep - jail. Government ignored or imprisoned the protesters. It became treasonous to report on bad acts - Julian Assange, anyone?

My thought was in responding as I did above, karlof1, that the majority of people do know what is going on, and don't support it - I was disagreeing with the 'tolerated, abided, excused' description. Families see no future in government policies today. Healthcare, education, working conditions, the ability to have a family even (!) are all down the tubes. Politically there are no solutions. What do we have left? Just the ability to act decently towards one another, help one another however we can, person to person. Love life and love living. I see that happening all around me, and I take heart. That's the America I wanted to be part of. It's still there.

Thanks. You are an honorable and dedicated poster. I always find merit in what you say.

Posted by: juliania | Nov 6 2019 21:44 utc | 66

This is an explosive interview with Oleg Tsarev:

If what he claims is true, it explains why the DNC-aligned permanent bureaucracy went apoplectic upon hearing the Trump-Zelensky call:

"It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian....

"It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for “support of democracy”. First billion dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the “acting President”....

"And the money was stolen – by the Democrats and their Ukrainian counterparts....

"Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.

As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for “Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers’ money”. Among the accused there are two consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019....

If Trump will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved."

Posted by: FDRdem | Nov 6 2019 22:00 utc | 67

@67 FDRdem.. that link from oct 25th has been posted here at moa numerous times... i think the fact is the usa is guilty in orchestrating a coup in ukraine that happened feb 23 2014... for that info to actually see the light of day, a lot more then the democrat parties position is at stake.. the whole enchilada of usa corruption is on display... if they are going to show some of it, they will have to own up to way more then any us politician would be willing to do.. it goes beyond party lines.. in all likelihood the continuation of same ol' same ol' is still in effect here... the circus of ''it was only one of these 2 political parties that did it'' continues on until the whole thing comes crashing down.. i anticipate the former, not the later, at the moment..

Posted by: james | Nov 6 2019 22:44 utc | 68

The trial against Roger Stone is starting. My hope is that Roger Stone is convicted. Anyone responsible for aiding and abetting the Dumpster of Corruption deserves everything coming to him.

Who knows, maybe once faced with prison, he'll turn on Trump and deliver him on a platter to the Feds. Hopefully he's part of the perfect storm heading Trump's way.

Rudy Giuliani also lawyered up to face an investigation regarding his involvement in the Ukraine affair and campaign finance violations. Again, when faced with the prospect of a criminal record, maybe Rudy will squeal on Trump. I'm sure Trump will pretend again, like he did in the case of Michael Cohen, that he had no idea what his lawyer was up to trying to extort dirt on Biden from the Ukraine gov.

So, let's see: that's Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen and soon Stone and Giuliani. All indicted covering for the unindicted boss, scumbag Trump. Serves them right! Stone and Rudy should remind themselves of Manafort and Cohen serving time, save their asses and give up their boss. The walls are closing in on your boy Trump.

Posted by: Circe | Nov 7 2019 1:29 utc | 69

circe @70

Beware the Flynn jabberwocky named Emmet G. Sullivan.

Posted by: pogohere | Nov 7 2019 1:53 utc | 70

One more thing: News is breaking that Trump asked AG Barr to hold a news conference stating that Trump broke no laws in regards to the Ukraine affair. AG Barr must recuse himself from the whole Ukraine matter.

Posted by: Circe | Nov 7 2019 2:17 utc | 71

@juliania #32
The United States had conscription during the Vietnam war - having every male youth literally at risk of being sent to war and very real risk of dying has a powerful effect on protesting.
The same is not true today. The US Armed Forces are "volunteer". Most of the casualties are to "private contractors".
Occupy was a genuine protest, but let's face it: it went nowhere.
Iraq protests were real, but what is notable is how little protest there was when Obama was in power. I've seen articles where heroes of the Bush era anti-war protest movement complained how no one listened to them anywhere (during Obama Presidencies). As such, it is impossible for me to then believe that the Democratic institutional support for the Iraq anti-war protests, lukewarm as it was, was anything more than cynical political calculation. Particularly since the Democratic party is now the most warmongering group anywhere.
And to be clear, I'm not endorsing the Republicans either. Lindsey Graham...yuk.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 7 2019 12:39 utc | 72

An excellent piece on Vindman and his testimony by Philp Giraldi, at Strategic Culture today.

Posted by: bevin | Nov 7 2019 14:45 utc | 73

a method of shortening url above at 73

use tinyurl. drop prefix since it is always the same. (which is to the strategicculture article)

becomes yxsk273p

Posted by: Walter | Nov 7 2019 15:06 utc | 74

I too see hope and take comfort in person to person interactions.
I disagree though that 'most' people do know what is going on. While they see our way of life here is not working they cling to the image of America as good guys. Militarism reigns. How often we will hear 'thanks for guarding our freedom', our heros are warriers. No matter the USA has not won a war my entire lifetime [ok, we always have Gernada!] No matter that one can clearly see our wars are making us more poor,less secure,less free.

Posted by: Maureen | Nov 7 2019 15:58 utc | 75

Thanks for your comment, c1ue @ 72. I agree with most of it. I would point out, however, that when I see a veteran on the bus or train, receiving special privileges, I do not hear "thanks for guarding our freedom" as Maureen has asserted in her #75 comment. I do see him being regarded with respect, but that is because most of us in the 'deplorable' range realize that our young folk today are being forced into a draft of a different nature from that earlier one - though too that had its 'volunteers' from the poor and downtrodden of society - the wealthy could always avoid service as we have often pointed out here. The times are not so different; only things are being called different names, and as you say, privatized shamefully and remorselessly.

Occupy arose, and was brutally put down, during the Obama administration. I do not have the feeling that it failed - parts of it still were functioning during Hurricane Sandy in New York - and global climate change is one of those factors that have chanaged prospects for our youth. Already during Occupy there was the notion that political parties, both of the major ones, have failed us. Occupy was ahead of its time, but it went deep into the country's better nature and demonstrated even in its demise that what it fought does exist and is to be resisted. The ballerina dancing on the head of the bull. She's bound to fall beneath his hooves and be trampled but like the phoenix she will rise again in a different form.

The Obama presidency succeeded in being the worst betrayal of what I will call Constitutional values of any presidency, even that of Clinton. We have yet to come to terms with each of those three opening presidencies as this century turned, but we will. We always do. And it won't be a happy legacy for them or their inheritors. It will be a legacy of shame.

I'm not saying anything about Trump at present. So far his legacy is a mixed bag. I am hoping he can redeem it, for the sake of his family and all of our families. He has shown some signs that he is trying to do that.

Posted by: juliania | Nov 7 2019 17:12 utc | 76

Sorry about "chanaged". I was typing "changed" but I think my fingers knew better and were trying to say "challenged". Works better!

Posted by: juliania | Nov 7 2019 17:21 utc | 77

All your WaPo links have been redirect to a single page 'correcting the record' about dates.. maybe sort that out.

Posted by: Meeee | Nov 24 2019 4:51 utc | 78

The comments to this entry are closed.