Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 01, 2019

Impeachment Theater

Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate. The 'whistleblower complaint' is the new 'dirty dossier'. The 'former' MI6 spy Christopher Steele wrote the dossier. The current CIA spy Eric Ciaramella wrote the 'complaint':

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake.


The Democrats have chosen the wrong issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of ballast. The choice of a Trump phonecall with the Ukrainian president as the item to hang the impeachment on is especially dumb. Trump's call was less incriminating than Biden's pressure on the Ukrainian president to help his son's paymaster. It is also a mistake to let the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff run the impeachment process. Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security Council, had advised him.

The process will create a lot of collateral damage. It will hurt a number people involved in it, but it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. It will not end with impeachment. I believe, like Noam Chomsky, that it will, in the end, even help Trump:

"Is it politically wise? I frankly doubt it. I think it’ll turn out pretty much like the Mueller report, which, that I thought was also a political mistake. What’ll happen is probably the House will impeach, goes to the Senate. The Republican senators are utterly craven. They’re terrified of Trump’s voting base. So they’ll vote to turn down the impeachment request. Trump will come along, say I’m vindicated. Say it was the Deep State and the treacherous Dems trying to overturn the election. Oh, vote for me."

Trump can be beaten by good policies. Instead of offering any the Democrats try to defeat him with theater. But Trump is a much better showman than Schiff or any other Democrat. It almost looks as if they want Trump to win.

Posted by b on November 1, 2019 at 17:25 UTC | Permalink

next page »

'The Democrats' would do with Trump, if the alternative would be Bernie Sanders. That was the case in 2016 and will be true in 2020.

Posted by: bjd | Nov 1 2019 17:40 utc | 1

Thanks for the posting b even though I wish we were "talking" about more substantive issues of humanity than this obfuscation circus by the craven American/global elite.

I agree that Trump will not be impeached by the Senate.

To me, the question remains if the Dems are a totally lost party or if this process will be the spark that refocus them with new leadership and a set of potential president/vice that is some Bernie/Tulsi/Warren combo which could beat Trump, IMO.

I am not optimistic of the Dems evolving but the Green party (which I supported last time) could be a spoiler if they get some traction with maybe Tulsi bolting from the Dems.

Interesting times but sadly not where our focus should be as a species given all the global challenges.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 1 2019 17:41 utc | 2

It all depends on which "they" wants Trump to win. Much like for 2014 the Deep State convinced Clinton to provide back-room media cover for Trump vs all the other Republican candidates, especially Bush III. Could it be the Deep State is petrified that Gabbard might actually win the Dem nomination? The DS must know that Biden or Warren are not going to beat Trump, so may have decided they can keep Trumpy corralled by an endless stream of MIC Swampers. Gabbard would screw all that plan up.

Posted by: A P | Nov 1 2019 17:51 utc | 3

if they want him to win then its a gamble as usually in 2nd term POTUS becomes more autocratic and so Trump may implement his core base promises like better relations with Russia, eff NATO...and other anti globalist policies...I wonder?

Posted by: RussianSoul | Nov 1 2019 18:03 utc | 4

Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now that the identity of the "whistleblower" is apparently known, all the Republicans under Devin Nunes have to do is sub-poena the "whistleblower" to attend.

The Democrats might attempt to block that using the "rules" in the impeachment resolution passed just recently:

The House Intelligence Committee will hold public hearings, and Republicans will need approval from at least some Democrats to call witnesses or to otherwise issue subpoenas.

But the Democrats will look like wankers and will eventually cave, because the Senate is in no way obligated by the impeachment reolution. Schiff is so deranged about getting Trump that he'll fail and Trump will win in 2020. Just like 2016 was Hillary Clinton's responsibility, 2020 will be Adam Sciff's.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Nov 1 2019 18:04 utc | 5

Zerohedge just posted, citing the Washington Examiner, that CiaraMeLLA refuses to testify after it became known he worked with Biden et al and was coached by Schiffty's staff. A little cold feet, must be the snowl. And also, his Attorneys came down with rat's flu.

Posted by: Likklemore | Nov 1 2019 18:04 utc | 6

Of course it will help Trump... That's what all the theater has been all about, from the start... Or you thought the Deep State is dumb, shooting itself in the foot, again and again, not knowing what to do about ''its archenemy'', Reality TV billionaire (thanks to Rothschild credit) Trump...

Posted by: AlainJ | Nov 1 2019 18:07 utc | 7

Thanks b: I have not understood why the Dems have been playing their stupid impeachment policies. B is correct that they could run against Trump with actual good policies and win, but I suppose that would mean endorsing Bernie, Tulsi, or even Yang; but they can not do this because it would go against their corporate donors. So maybe they have no other options than to let Trump win, as Biden, Warren, Harris, Booker, or any other ClintonIte will lose to the Trump. Perhaps they've made a deal with the "Borg" to let the Orange man win?

Posted by: bill ziebell | Nov 1 2019 18:09 utc | 8

It nearly looks as if they want Trump to win.

They highly likely do...

How they could otherwise effectively bluntly steal all what has been planned to steal ( at whatever cost for others...)before the dollar falls, as it is currently happening in Syria?

Posted by: Sasha | Nov 1 2019 18:09 utc | 9

Plus, the phone call issue, IMO, fails to meet the criteria for impeachment as there's no crime involved. As I've written many times, there are plenty of valid reasons--crimes--that Trump ought to be impeached over but the Ds will never employ them just as Pelosi refused to do her duty and allow impeachment charges to be filed against Bush/Cheney.

IMO, Gabbard and Sanders must seriously consider forming a 3rd Party to mount a challenge to Trump as the D-Party's about to shoot itself in the head--and hopefully it won't miss.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 18:12 utc | 10

What it is is the Corporate party will still take Trump over Sanders or Tulsi. And why is that? That is because either one of those two, having won, will promptly defenestrate all of the current crop of federal-trough-feeders into the street, and take over, just as Clinton did back in the day.

Ever since it because clear that Obama did not intend to use the mandate we gave him, and he dis-assembled the machine he built to win, I have never given the DNC a thought. Never again.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 1 2019 18:27 utc | 11

There is no doubt that Impeachmentgate is the Act 2 of Russiagate. There is so much continuity between the two acts, most of all that neither are/were wise. It reminds me so much of US military interventions - no good endgame, withdraw like a dog with a tail between your legs from a war that was lost even before it was started (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc). Naturally, those wars were not started to win then to get rich. Now here comes a genius who wants to actually steal the oil or something else of value instead of spending huge amounts of money just to make the world a better place. Much better, isn't it? What a novel idea, the wars were never before about stealing other people's property (cattle and women)!

But, one has to put himself into the shoes of the Democrats to understand why Russiagate must continue. Firstly, as b says they got nothing, no policy, no differentiation, no believable claim that they could do something better than the incumbent, no new spring of hope faux agent of change like Obama. There is a chance of real change in Gabbard, but who is crazy enough to subject the entrenched interests to real change. Secondly, they have this spiffy Main Sewerage Media machine under their control, which can churn out an endless stream of turds (Vindman, Ciaramella) wrapped into golden foil to pass them as voter candy. Remember that genocide-personified Democrat Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having this superb military if you can't use it?" No machine runs on empty, they need to feed some crap into the propaganda machine.

So what are the Democrats to do? B, it is easy to say Impeachmentgate is bad electioneering, but do suggest any better approach that could return this most criminal gang on the planet back into power and safety from prosecution.

Posted by: Kiza | Nov 1 2019 18:27 utc | 12

Cue the Gabbard and Sanders chorus.

These duopoly candidates will save us!



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

Glad to see b catching up. Hopefully he'll recognize how Russiagate and Ukrainegate were helped along by Trump's own actions (hiring Mueller, calling for Russia to "release the emails", skirting ethical norms by getting directly involved in policing matter involving his potential political opponent).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 1 2019 18:33 utc | 13

First link from C-span on the deep staters before an audience:

Second link: Thank God for the Deep State:

Gad, if ever an exhibition of hypocrisy and arrogance was needed to trigger the revulsion of these people, this should do it; "doing their duty>"

No wonder, what these people do around the world, murder, destruction, mayhem, regime change.

Posted by: Thomas Minnehan | Nov 1 2019 18:34 utc | 14

I waiting for Trump to praise Assad for saying he is the most transparent President ever.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 1 2019 18:42 utc | 15

Amazing how the universe/world/nature works.

Societies all over the world have been turned upside down, creating untold suffering en mass by such bogus half cooked rabbit in the hat tricks....only to find its way back to the US and sicken the American society.....Poor Americans, like poor civilians elsewhere have no idea where its all coming from and are instead at each others' throats.

Posted by: Someone | Nov 1 2019 18:43 utc | 16

" It nearly looks as if they want Trump to win."
Nearly? it have seemed like they wanted him to win since 2016, nearly is a understatement imho...
This bread and circus for the plebs is getting boring,, the utter stupidity in their manuscripts and the gaggle of vassals and terrorists they support is the lowest iq and degenerate nihilists in the world.
The Benedict option seems like the only option left, unless one wants to let the "modern world" drive one insane or into isolation..

Posted by: Per/Norway | Nov 1 2019 18:44 utc | 17

Careful b. You don't want to give more leash to those who think the democrats are in cahoots with potus. As I have said before, trump has done more than any other president in memory to pull the wool from the independent voter's eye. They will no longer vote along partisan lines, knowing there is so little daylight, or in any case the stuff that actually matters, between the parties.

It is a brand new world thanks to trump. Regardless of any temporary rethug policy he manages to employ.

The bed has been thoroughly shat. No gluing humpty-dumpty, and no writing schiff's ship.

Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Nov 1 2019 18:51 utc | 18

Someone @16--

Thanks for outing the rabbit for what it is. Most certainly a needed public service for the readers of MoA.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 18:52 utc | 19

Looks like the Dems are in trouble:

Elizabeth Warren Proposes $20.5 Trillion Health Care Plan

Warren Leads Tight Iowa Race as Biden Fades, Poll Finds

The DNC is now, effectively, fighting on two fronts: the GOP from the Right and the developmentists/progressives from the Left.

In this scenario, it may well be the case it will choose to use a botched impeachment to reelect Trump and thus implode the Leftist opposition inside their own party. It isn't a perfect strategy, but at least it buys them time (four years, to be precise).

The GOP and the Dems may have their differences, but they are both from the Capitalist Party. The divergence is not that the USA shouldn't be an empire anymore, but how the empire should be managed.

Posted by: vk | Nov 1 2019 19:01 utc | 20

You're headline is perfect b. This is Theater. These are the Vagina Monologues of the Beltway Bourgeoise.

It is the US political process that is being impeached, so to speak, to prepare us for it's eventual dismantling.

Living in the day to day one might think this circus matters. It does not. All actors/public figures work for hidden interests, who in turn take orders from a centralized authority.

Frankly it is foolish and childish to pretend otherwise.

My sole exposure to straight up Octopus Media is listening to the radio, which I sometimes turn on during long drives. Sometimes. Even then mostly I turn it off, in anger. I dislike being taken for a fool. I have no cable, don't watch garbage movies and no longer bother glancing at newspaper headlines as I'm passing by. There's just no point. To the best of my ability I am self directed in my thinking.

We should all do the same. When we surf we are partly self directed, that's true, but also here we must acknowledge EVERYTHING available is Octopus Media and Intelligence controlled, by one means or another.

Posted by: Zedd | Nov 1 2019 19:05 utc | 21

thanks b... the dems could question trumps comment that the usa plans to steal syrias oil... that would be an actual conversation of merit here.. instead the dems have the gun pointed at their foot and are going to hit it again with this...

@10 karlof1... there is no way sanders would consider a 3rd party run.. the guy is not capable of independent action like that..he is another cog in the wheel happy to go along with all the same bullshite..

the whole usa system of bullshite has to come down... trump is helping as i see it.. the dems are too!! this is really an impeachment case against this joke called freedom and democracy that the usa likes to cloak itself in..

Posted by: james | Nov 1 2019 19:14 utc | 22

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote an editorial recently "Proof of Trump’s impeachable offenses plain to see" here. . .Some excerpts follow:

...The proof is largely undisputed, except by the president himself. It consists of admissions, testimony and documents, which show that Trump sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2020 presidential election.
... the president asked [Attorney General] Barr for a formal legal opinion that dirt on a political opponent is not a thing of value.
...That legal opinion, which Trump has touted as a form of exoneration, has been so widely mocked in legal and political circles – because dirt on an opponent is the most valuable commodity for a political campaign, and candidates pay dearly for it – that congressional Republicans have stopped referring to it.

Now here we have a "judge," a lawyer, saying that information is a thing, without any doubt.

Why is this important? Because the law that Trump has allegedly broken is the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which under SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN (their caps) "It shall be unlawful for-- ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-- ``(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, . . .(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution donation described .

So the lawyer/judge is wrong (which is why lawyers don't go to heaven). The law expressly outlaws FOREIGN MONEY and forbids soliciting foreign money or other thing of value, say like a fur coat. . .For non-lawyers, information is not a thing, which is perhaps why the AG made his determination and also why congressional Republicans have stopped referring to it.

thing: an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2019 19:17 utc | 23

We can speculate all we want about which strings the Deep State is pulling or which dimensional chess it is playing, the bottom line is that I cannot vote either for the “Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet” Dim Party or the “Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet” Repug Party. I’ll therefore, as usual and most likely, vote for the Green Party.

Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Nov 1 2019 19:39 utc | 24

I think Bashar Al-Assad gave in the last interview the best description of the US system I have heard so a nutshell...

"American politics are no different from Hollywood; it relies on the imagination. Not even science fiction, just mere imagination. So, you can take American politics and see it in Hollywood or else you can bring Hollywood and see it through American politics."

Posted by: Sasha | Nov 1 2019 19:58 utc | 25

As far as this outsider sees, the Dems don't have a winning candidate (yet), necessary as we're in a second term election. Unlikely that Trump is going to be successfully impeached.

Quite different from Britain, where a supposed populist Trump-like prime minister is going into an election uncertain of what the result is going to be. He thought certain victory, given the old party divide, but the old divide has broken up, and who knows what the result is going to be?

Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 1 2019 20:07 utc | 26

Have the demoncrats used their house majority to put forward any legislation since they have a majority. Do we see a 15 dollar per hour minimum wage bill? Do we see an infrastructure maintenance restoration bill? Losers.

karlof1 #18 nice barb you have there :))

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2019 20:12 utc | 27

Yes, what were they thinking... it really is more of the same.

That said, the national Dem party leadership is getting some minor things out of it, at the cost of I think +1% to Trump in the 2020 general election:

* Biden got a small boost. He was going to get attacked on his and Hunter's Ukraine business anyway, they defended him. It was also a big show of support for him by the entire House Democrat side - in the face of surprisingly weak fundraising.
* Completely drowned out TV/press coverage of everything else to do with the primary.
* This ends the chances of all the minor candidates except Buttigieg (but i bet some will stick around anyway in hopes of a VP nomination or cabinet position)
* Public support for impeachment gained something like 8-10%, now evenly split. But this statistic means little because it is Senate Republicans who decide, and they would be committing political suicide given Trump's 85%+ support among Republican voters.

Besides that, it is the undecided / apathetic voters who are the real audience, and they seem to remain unswayed. The swing-state polling is not looking great either, with FL, AZ, and perhaps WI viewing impeachment less favorably than the national average. PA on the other hand is neutral to very faintly supportive of impeachment.

Also with Harris looking finished, Buttigieg picked up another 10% of the "moderate" Dems in polls. Biden will want this group of voters, so something will be happening there sooner or later.

The House intel committee investigation will continue, maybe indefinitely. With the star witness backing out, it does seem that they got taken for a ride (once again) by the national security guys. And Trump's outsider status, a positive in today's electorate, is again established.

Posted by: ptb | Nov 1 2019 20:17 utc | 28

The gateway pundit is asking if Ciaramella is the "Charlie" referred to in Strzok and Page emails. This Charlie was the FBI appointed spy in the whitehouse. Oops, Ciaramella and his FBI handlers might have a big problem.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2019 20:29 utc | 29

At our stage of political disintegration the interesting question is what comes after Trump- a return to business as usual? doubt it that Rubicon has been crossed,

Posted by: Brad Lena | Nov 1 2019 20:33 utc | 30

Was Reagan “tragedy” or was it some other prez? We sure as hell know Krav MAGA Trump is “farce”.

Posted by: oglalla | Nov 1 2019 20:53 utc | 31

"Trump can be beaten by good policies." Unfortunately the corrupt Democrats have none to offer.

Posted by: Steve | Nov 1 2019 20:57 utc | 32

@vk 19
"Looks like the Dems are in trouble"

Yes they are.

If I understand this year's DNC rule changes, Biden needs to either keep Sanders below 15% - the minimum threshold to get voting delegates at the convention - which is unlikely, or he needs another "moderate" such as Buttigieg to get above 15% and then endorse him, or he needs enough of a lead to beat Warren and Sanders together.

Otherwise, only delegates for Sanders, Warren, and Biden vote. Sanders can endorse Warren, and their combined delegates would be enough to give Warren the nomination on the first round of the convention (before superdelegates). To complete the nightmare scenario for the DNC, Sanders would get to name his price for supporting Warren.

So perhaps they are hoping to scrape up all the random-other-moderate Dems, give their supporters to Buttigieg to get him over 15%, and have him endorse Buden in the end. That would be a semi plausible scenario...

Posted by: ptb | Nov 1 2019 20:57 utc | 33

No, b:

Ukraine-gate is not the new Russia-gate.

The latter is entirely lies.

Whereas there is some truths mixed into Ukraine-gate, the two most important ones being Trump asking the President of Ukraine to interfere with Biden's 2019 candidacy, and Hunter Biden's very real corruption. Ironically a corruption that has some relation to that of Trump's kids.

Right, by pushing impeachment the Democrats are helping Trump and his 2020 chances.

Posted by: Jay | Nov 1 2019 21:00 utc | 34

I am not fond of Federalist Society which has its own part of "deep state", but
they know a thing or two about bureaucracy, law etc.

One legitimate issue is if the government should investigate political opponents
. There is a potential for abuse in two directions: impure political tools of y
ou do it, impunity to established powers if you do not.

For example, if you desire to investigate bankers as a part of your political pr
ogram, you can bet that more than a random sample of bankers will join the ranks
of your political opponents.

Concerning the politics of the issue, a surprising percentage of Americans trust
s FBI and CIA, and centrist Democrats would like to ride on the wave of this sen
timent. But "interagency consensus" is not as popular, however illogical it may
seem. Chances are, champions of interagency consensus may gain the support of
the majority of the Democratic "base", but they will get slim picking in other d

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 1 2019 21:07 utc | 35

Sure the Dems have a winning candidate. If she were nominated, Tulsi Gsbbard would win the election in a landslide.

But the Dems will never nominate her.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 1 2019 21:10 utc | 36

This parasite ..."The current CIA spy Eric Ciaramella wrote the 'complain'... This snake is a spy? Well blow me away! This numbnut will be thrown under the bus by his handlers. Apparently thirty three years old and all those qualifications, paper ones, right. No real life shit and like the rest of his millennial snowflakes will suffer the consequences of trying to play hardball with people that some have been raised on the street and in the gutter. Useless as a tit on a bull in my opinion.

Posted by: Taffyboy | Nov 1 2019 21:10 utc | 37


The identity of the whistleblower was publicly known already on October 10, 2019. Another important detail about Eric Ciaramella and his activities was revealed at the same time.

John Solomon published an article in The Hill on April 25, 2019 on the origins of Ukrainegate:

How the Obama White House engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost

That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama administration’s intervention.

The White House visitor records available online reveal that the meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building was hosted by Eric Ciaramella, the CIA "whistleblower".

FOOL NELSON ⭐⭐⭐ on Twitter - October 12, 2019

BREAKING: Alleged #Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ran the meeting that @jsolomonReports was "one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative".
@AndriyUkraineTe please confirm.

United States Attorney General William Barr is investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The New York Times reports that this investigation has turned into a criminal investigation. Would this make Eric Ciaramella a suspect?

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Nov 1 2019 21:14 utc | 38

@ petri... that's why this ukrainegate is closely connected to russiagate... 2 peas in a pod type thing..

Posted by: james | Nov 1 2019 21:23 utc | 39

Pardon me for asking, but how many people died in the course of events both before and after the coup in Ukraine? Biden abetted everyone of those deaths, as did Obama, Nuland, and a host of other Outlaw US Empire pukes. Trump was correct in asking about Biden's level of involvement with the Ukraine government that he helped install through his help in murdering people. Trump hasn't used such terms yet, but there're lots of Trump folk out there plus a few like me that don't have any reason not to review the truth about the huge crime that Biden was responsible for as Veep. And of course, that's not the only Capital Crime that Biden abetted as Obama's Veep.

I for one am sick and tired of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to accusing Outlaw US Empire pukes correctly of the crimes they've committed. And as I've written often, Trump's guilty too, but what they're trying to pin on him doesn't meet the impeachment threshold required by the constitution. Hell, he's bent on stealing Syrian oil and trying to illegally profit from its sale, and if that's not an impeachable crime I don't know what is!

Occasionally on Twitter you run into a great photo of two terrorists pointing their pistols at each others head. That's what I see happening between the D and R Parties. It would be a boon to the nation and world if they'd pull their triggers at the same time and die.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 21:26 utc | 40

The Washington Post actually ran a very favorable article on Gabbard's campaign in Iowa a couple of days ago. Most unusual for them. Only explanation I can think of is that they realize she has a good chance of winning the Iowa caucuses and don't want to be caught flatfooted by continuing their noncoverage of her campaign.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 1 2019 21:28 utc | 41

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 21:26 utc | 39

Pardon me for asking, but how many people died in the course of events both before and after the coup in Ukraine?

Official UN numbers are around 12,000. My own estimate is over 40,000. The Ukrainian casualties in Debaltsevo alone amount to almost 10,000.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Nov 1 2019 21:40 utc | 42

lysias @40--

Thanks for your comment! It got me to go and look at Gabbard's Twitter page to see if she'd mentioned it. She didn't, but she did post this notice:

"The nursing shortage in America is most negatively impacting people living in rural communities who often have few healthcare options. Today Congress passed my bipartisan bill (w/ @RepDaveJoyce) the Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act, to help educate & train more nurses!"

She said "Congress" but was that just a reference to the House or did the Senate also vote in favor, and would Trump sign such a bill despite it obviously being indispensable for MAGA? Apparently, good legislation is happening but not getting reported, thus the assumption that nothing's happening.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 21:44 utc | 43

Petri Krohn @41--

Thanks very much for your reply! Would the assault on the people of Donbas be characterized as the waging of aggressive war? I know what Poroschenko called it, but that was a 100% false characterization. I bet there's lots of classified communications proving Outlaw US Empire involvement in waging that war, which would constitute another Capital Crime abetted by Biden. The war and banker pimp Obama needs to be dragged into this too as does Clinton. Trump needs to see this thusly: If they try to take me down, I'll take them all down. And the nation and world would thank him for doing so.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 21:58 utc | 44

ditto @43 karlof1 !

Posted by: james | Nov 1 2019 22:10 utc | 45

Waiting for Barr to bring criminal charges against the Russiagate conspirators is likely a lost cause. Barr has been CIA for decades. At least one witness says Barr made a secret visit to the federal prison in Manhattan that housed Epstein 2 or 3 days before Epstein was killed. Barr is a swamp creature to his bones.

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | Nov 1 2019 22:14 utc | 46

this political theater by the democratic Elites about impeachment will not come to a good end. I can see it going much as B and others are imagining. A few republican senators might abstain, or even perhaps vote against Trump, but he'll actually come out better than Clinton in the final Senate vote.

The millionaires and billionaires that now run the democratic party will never allow a Sanders or Gabbard to be candidate - so it's going to be either biden or Warren, I strongly suspect.

even worse, these wankers in the democratic party and their billionaire backers (some exceptions of course) don't even realize, they haven't the faintest idea really, nor do they perhaps even care, how close the human race is to being totally wiped out this century by climate catastrophe (leave alone the possibility of some nuclear war in the next 80 years). Hell you can't even get much enthusiasm among the american people/voters because they've been so propagandized and brainwashed by the right wing crackpots who control the US/world economy and the media Narrative, and who believe that this capitalist-consumerist orgy of a show will go on forever.

it's not looking good, no matter who wins at the impeachment barker circus, or in the 2020 election....

Posted by: michaelj72 | Nov 1 2019 22:16 utc | 47

42 Cont'd--

Did a quick search and found it only passed the House and now moves to the Senate. It's one of those funding acts for Title VIII that needs to be reauthorized to stay alive, and that's what happened. Joyce at his Twitter didn't mention Gabbard as co-sponsor, taking full credit for its passing.

Meanwhile, The Flynn Trial continues to produce details of entrapment, manipulation, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. One commenter is surprised Trump's DoJ continues to pursue the case when it ought to be obvious why: He spilled the beans about the formation of Daesh and its use by the Outlaw US Empire, and IMO Barr didn't like that.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 22:24 utc | 48

@ karlof1 #10

the Oct. 31 house roll call vote on the impeachment inquiry. (sorry, the software doesn't care for the direct url.)

D 116 1st U.S. House of Representatives 604 H RES 660 On Agreeing to the Resolution YEA-AND-NAY Passed 31-Oct-2019 11:27 AM Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its ...

yes, miz gabbard vote yea. pffft.

Posted by: wendy davis | Nov 1 2019 22:25 utc | 49

Likklemore @ 6

Zerohedge just posted, citing the Washington Examiner, that CiaraMeLLA refuses to testify after it became known he worked with Biden et al and was coached by Schiffty's staff.

He might be able to get away with not answering questions that might incriminate him but the Republicans should subpoena and if he refuses to answer other question do to him what the DoJ is doing to Chelsea Manning. Could he stick it out as Chelsea Manning has? I doubt it.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Nov 1 2019 22:25 utc | 50

Everyone is forgetting the CIA control files, no vote in the Senate can be taken for granted.
Give them the cover with a Closed Session for national security reasons.
Schitt is lead man for a reason,he probably has something up his sleeve, and is chair of the Intelligence(oxymoron) cmtee., it looks to be a setup for some revelation we won't see
that can be convicted upon behind closed doors.

Posted by: winston2 | Nov 1 2019 22:26 utc | 51

@ Petri Krohn 37
engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost
Good info, and as a sidelight...I'll play "language maven" on the quotes you use, put some fire in "give Russia collusion narrative." Improve on what they said.

Perhaps instead we should use the current get-Trump language.
"Obama sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2016 presidential election."
"Ukraine was given military gear in exchange for dirt on Obama's election opponent"

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2019 22:28 utc | 52

@ NoOneYouKnow | Nov 1 2019 22:14 utc | 45

i dunno; i think with the addition of federal prosecutor john durham,, the investigation's expanding, and just might grow some legs, and grow barr an actual spine.

no comments here:

the diary's long and messy, but...there it is. ; ) some comments here where i cross-post:

Posted by: wendy davis | Nov 1 2019 22:34 utc | 53

Don Bacon @ 22

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote an editorial recently "Proof of Trump’s impeachable offenses plain to see" here. . .Some excerpts follow: ...The proof is largely undisputed, except by the president himself.

Outside of the corporate Democrats there are many who dispute it who are far more credible than Judge Andrew Napolitano, 9/11 conspiracy nut.

Since Joe Biden was never head of state, he has no legal immunity and what is wrong with Trump pointing out that the United States has no problem with Biden being investigated for corruption - I doubt there is anything in U.S. law that grants immunity to a possible presidential candidate so, no, Trump is not interfering in the 2020 election. And last I heard the corporate Democrats were claiming Ukraine is a sovereign state, so if it is investigating Biden's alleged corruption, it's nothing to do with the United States.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Nov 1 2019 22:43 utc | 54

Oh yeah, Oakland's way gone (Grand Lake Theater). It's funny how the most gentrified, crime ridden, feces laden sh*t holes are the citadels of neoliberalism's west coast elites.

Posted by: coboarts | Nov 1 2019 23:02 utc | 55

If it weren't the phone call to Ukraine, it would be some other petty reason to impeach Trump. Primarily there was the move, led by CNN, right after Trump unexpectedly won the 2016 election, to hurt Trump's inauguration in January 2017. The "Impeach Trump" movement included the Steele Dossier first showcased on CNN Jan 10, 2017 and also magazine articles such as Vanity Fair's "Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump" on Dec 15, 2016 here, both prior to Trump's inauguration. And it's gone on since then, culminating in this political side show, as if "digging up dirt" on one's political appointment originated with Trump. They couldn't come up with anything really important, any really good reason to dump the elected president, to negate his election, sort of like with Nixon and Clinton.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2019 23:10 utc | 56

Oh, how they like to twist language to suit their own purposes.

Ciaramella is not a "whistleblower", but a CIA political operative (spy). Otherwise, he would not be showered with kisses from the DNC and coddled like a new puppy. Rather, he would be hauled before the Inquisition's high magistrate and thrown into the dungeon with all the other true whistleblowers.

Posted by: Maxwell Quest | Nov 1 2019 23:14 utc | 57

lysias @40:

The explanation is more likely the opposite, I’m afraid. The Iowa caucuses are now close enough, and Gabbard polling low enough, that the WashPost feel they can tidy up their record by publishing something about her, even something favorable. If she were really threatening the front-runners, minimal and/or hostile coverage would be de rigueur.

Posted by: David G | Nov 1 2019 23:20 utc | 58

There sure are some strange critters in DC.

Posted by: Josh | Nov 1 2019 23:28 utc | 59

wendy davis @48--

Thanks for your reply! IMO, Gabbard was correct to vote Yea for the inquiry as it doesn't specify the crime(s). On her Twitter, Gabbard called out Trump for his continuing criminal actions in Syria which constitute a High Crime and impeachable offense. Furthermore, the orders given were all illegal orders as they're against international and US Law and should've been refused by every soldier issued them as it's their duty to do so. Unfortunately, Gabbard didn't make that very important point.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2019 23:31 utc | 60

The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake.

Right on b, a MAJOR blunder. But they stampeded themselves into that blunder because of their hysteria over Trump gunning for Biden and all the other carpetbaggers in Ukraine. This Demoncrat gang of shysters have as much wisdom as a flat rock. They have now lost Biden, must choose frootloop Warren as they can never have Sanders.

That looks a lot like keeping USA safe for Trump to me.

It is so pathetically obvious and these Demoncrats can't even assemble a package of legislation with their majority to benefit USA citizens even one small bit. The Demoncrats 'leadership' are owned in their entirety by the oligarchs of MIC, big pharma and big insurance. The Greens are incapable of breaking through their glass ceiling. What a total shambles in just about every USA allied country.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2019 23:33 utc | 61

@ Maxwell Quest 56
Ciaramella is not a "whistleblower"
Correct, which is why we always put it in quotes as you did. A whistleblower reports problems in his own agency, not another one. That's why there was a delay in forwarding his document up the chain. Actually that document never should have seen the light of day, it was completely out of order. I trust that the Repubs will highlight some of this foolishness before it's over.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2019 23:40 utc | 62

@ karlof 59
should've been refused by every soldier issued them as it's their duty to do so.
Whoa, that's pretty strong broth.
soldier's enlistment oath--
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2019 23:46 utc | 63

Paddy Power betting odds: Will Trump Resign? No: 1/12 Yes: 5/1
Will Trump complete his first term in office? Yes: 2/9 No: 3/1.

For those not familiar with UK betting odds if you think Trump will complete his first term and you bet £90 you get only £20 back if you win plus your stake (£90) = £110. Conversely if you think he will not complete his first term and you bet £90 you will get £90x3 if you win = £270 (+£90 stake) = £360.

So bookies are not expecting Trump to get impeached or retire to his burrow to jack off.

Posted by: Lochearn | Nov 1 2019 23:48 utc | 64

David G @57--

I just posted poll results two days ago from New Hampshire showing Gabbard at 5% while Harris had dropped to 3%. And given the size of the field, 5% is respectable and was clearly a boost provided by Clinton's outburst. Gabbard was just given space for an op/ed in The Wall Street Journal which prompted the WaPost item. Can't read the WSJ item since it's behind a paywall, but The Washington Times ran its own piece about her op/ed that provides some insight as to its content, but that site won't allow copy/paste so I can't provide MoA with the blurb it published. Here's a WaPost item about Gabbard's Iowa campaign, which as I discovered when using google is one of many by the WaPost. Despite all the ads, I liked it, but it won't get me to subscribe.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 2 2019 0:00 utc | 65

Just got another fundraiser email from Tulsi's campaign. It ends with:
Tulsi is taking this fight directly to the people — with a packed schedule of townhalls and meet and greets, with big ad spends in the early states, with signs and boots on the ground. The best thing you can do right now to help Tulsi rise above the smear campaigns is to help her keep speaking truth to power. . . .

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 0:10 utc | 66

democrats don't care if they shoot themselves in the foot as long as sanders or gabbard doesn't win. that's the real threat to their machine.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 2 2019 0:11 utc | 67

karlof1, if google provided you with many WaPo pieces on Gabbard, I suspect most of them are kept just online (and off the WaPo's front page online), as I subscribe to the print edition (useful for providing local news), and this is the first long favorable piece I have noticed there.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 2 2019 0:15 utc | 68

Petri Krohn@41

Good point about the underestimated Ukrainian death toll in the war against the DPR and LPR. The number of photos showing Ukrainian destroyed armor suggests larger losses

Add to this was the 7k Ukr troops were surrounded and nearly wiped out near Debaltsevo following the Illovaisk defeat and the several brigades being trapped and mostly destroyed in the SE of the DPR and LPR along the Russian border. The MH17 shoot-down seemed timed to allowed many of these most experienced troops to escape the cauldron.

Meanwhile, damage from Ukrainian shelling and bombing infrastructure of south-eastern Ukrainian breakaway cities of Donetsk and Luhansk is estimated at $440 million.

Posted by: krollchem | Nov 2 2019 0:16 utc | 69

Don Bacon @62--

Thanks for your reply! You've been here long enough to know I enlisted in 1979 and have discussed the obligations of the soldier to orders and to what s/he owes allegiance to. In fact, this was just discussed a few days ago--again--in the context of Constitutional literacy and its relationship to citizenship and loyalty oaths. In 1979, the topic of illegal orders was still very much alive since Vietnam hadn't ended too long ago and the Pentagon Papers and Watergate were still fresh. The upshot is that at 23, my level of literacy was very high and I knew what constituted an illegal order and what my duty was in that regard--I wasn't to obey it. The entire Nuremburg Principle was also still fresh--obeying an order isn't an excuse when committing a war crime: the soldier is supposed to know what is right and wrong and act accordingly. Clearly, most military personnel these days are illiterate when it comes to those issues--but that's no excuse either as Nuremburg says.

IMO, when students first encounter the Holocaust in their school studies, the issues above need to be taught so if students later enlist they know their responsibilities.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 2 2019 0:18 utc | 70

Don Bacon, they're spending that money very well, to judge by that WaPo piece on Gabbard's Iowa campaign.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 2 2019 0:19 utc | 71

karlof1, I enlisted in the Air Force in 1969. Later that year, the My Lai scandal broke, and there were mandatory lectures throughout the military on the law of war. I attended one such lecture at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 2 2019 0:24 utc | 72

Again, the only dirty trick against Trump that made the slightest difference in the 2016 campaign was the Access Hollywood tape. Trump openly called for Russian assistance and only crybaby Trump lovers whine about Deep State idiocy. BS about Trump's Russian assets, BS about Obama using Ukraine, the only thing you learn from all this BS is there are assholes working here. Trump campaign violation in Ukraine is on a par with Clinton lying about stuff that wasn't anybody's business...except that using a petty violation to undo the people's choice in the election doesn't help Trump who wasn't the people's choice, just winner by a technicality. The losers who dished out treason, treason, treason against Clinton can't take it when it comes their way. I say, no decent human being wants to falsely charge treason. The folly and malice are extraordinary. What morons really believe that Ciaramela is suspect because he worked with Biden, when he embarrassed Biden? Biden pawns tell the boss to bury as much as possible, reach out behind the scenes, scream fire and point anywhere else. What they don't do is prompt an investigation of their supposed master. The abject fealty to their master Trump has destroyed their minds.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Nov 2 2019 0:29 utc | 73

lysias @67--

Thanks for your reply! I rarely employ google, but I knew it would give me better results for the search I conducted. That the print version provides sparse news doesn't surprise me as bandwidth's cheaper than newsprint. But I can't abide electronic paywalls. WaPost has a candidate page I tried to access to read its assessment of her but can't; but if you're a subscriber, you can see what sort of spin is attached to her.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 2 2019 0:32 utc | 74

Ghost Ship 5

" the Senate is in no way obligated by the impeachment reolution. "

From what I read at ZeroHedge, it sounds like it will be "Make my day" time in the Senate, with GOP senators able to subpoena anyone they want.

Posted by: Really?? | Nov 2 2019 0:38 utc | 75

@ karlof1 69
the orders given were all illegal orders as they're against international and US Law and should've been refused by every soldier issued them as it's their duty to do so. . .the soldier is supposed to know what is right and wrong and act accordingly
The US position is that the US is in Syria under the AUMF, countering ISIS. A line soldier has no option to doubt that and must obey orders. No officer will refuse orders either, so if an officer doesn't how could a soldier, having taken an oath to obey orders (an officer doesn't). This situation is unlike Vietnam b/c the soldiers are volunteers, not conscripts. And when they come home it's "thank you for your service." Vietnam vets never got that. Sure it's BS, but it is what it is.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 0:40 utc | 76


Try Washington Post using incognito mode in yandex. Should take you past the paywall. Works for me.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 2 2019 0:42 utc | 77

In the Senate, Senator Graham will be pawing and scratching to get back in Trump's good graces, it should be fun. Call it "the flip side."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 0:42 utc | 78

lysias @71--

Thanks again for your reply! I recall one class in Basic by someone from JAG on the topic; and IIRC, there was some mention of that within our General Orders. I edited a DLI student's research paper on South Africa's clandestine WMD program not long after 911 I found it very educational. I gave some thought to enrolling there in 1980 when I was offered OCS for the 3rd time but again said no. I'd have taken Russian if I had and become a linguist with my NSA-tied reserve unit. But my mind and plans were elsewhere.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 2 2019 0:47 utc | 79

Theatre is The Don’s game. Why woulda you play someone at their own game...? The Dems have gone full retard.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Nov 2 2019 0:54 utc | 80

Karlof1 39

"And of course, that's not the only Capital Crime that Biden abetted as Obama's Veep. "

It would be very satisfying if, as a result of the Dems' suicidal impeachment program, Saint Obama's halo were to be irretrievably tarnished and broken once and for all.

Posted by: Really?? | Nov 2 2019 0:55 utc | 81


Little mentioned is the server in Ukraine which was brought up in the phone call. Barr's investigation has become a criminal investigation and interested in a server in Ukraine.
The impeachment farce is trying to put the focus on Biden, but the server may be what they are trying to protect.
This impeachment show looks to be a rearguard or defensive action to try and stop the Barr criminal investigation into russiagate.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 2 2019 1:00 utc | 82

Don Bacon @75--

AUMF is unconstitutional as it contravenes the UN Charter. That's just one of the reasons why I'm so hawkish on having a Reckoning on the completely unlawful nature of the Outlaw US Empire. Personally, I'm currently dealing with constitutional issues in a legal case with my county/state, one aspect of which was heard by the USSC a few weeks ago. The point being that the US Constitution applies to everyone or none--there cannot be any fence straddling as Justice is supposed to be blind and favor none. Either that moral cade is applied universally or we as humans are lost and have no claim to being higher animals. /Rant

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 2 2019 1:02 utc | 83

karlof1 @64:

Gabbard at 5% ... [after what] was clearly a boost provided by Clinton's outburst.

But few question why Hillary did that.

Hillary is smart enough to know that it would give Gabbard a boost.

Democracy Works! propagandists don't want us discussing such things.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 2 2019 1:02 utc | 84

@ karlof 82
AUMF is unconstitutional as it contravenes the UN Charter.
Have you ever heard the UN Charter mentioned in any government statement or in any "news" article?. . .To ask the question is to answer it, right?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 1:15 utc | 85

Don Bacon @75
karlof1 @82: AUMF is unconstitutional as it contravenes the UN Charter.

AFAIK there has been no Constitutional challenge to AUMF. And I agree with the others who have expressed skepticism about your UN charter arguments.

Soldiers will continue to obey what they believe to be lawful orders of their commanders (as Don Bacon points out).

What should be brought to USSC is Executive Branch circumvention of Congress via third-party/off-the-books funding of covert operations as well as long-term working arrangements that are essentially unratified treaties. That no one has done so tells you all you need to know ...


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 2 2019 1:22 utc | 86

That should be "no on with standing"

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 2 2019 1:23 utc | 87

gr... "no one"

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 2 2019 1:24 utc | 88

Really?? @ 74

From what I read at ZeroHedge, it sounds like it will be "Make my day" time in the Senate, with GOP senators able to subpoena anyone they want.

Yes, but if the GOP senators stick with their usual grandstanding posing then they can subpoena whoever they like and it'll be pointless. Actually, it'll be a complete and utter waste of fucking time because GOP senators have little or no experience of forensic cross-examination and will spend their time dicking around and asking stupid questions in a vain vain attempt to look good.. If they really want to stick it to the Democrats they need a Senate impeachment resolution that allows them to use really experienced outside criminal lawyers to plan and carry out the questioning. Since most experienced U.S. criminal lawyers are experts at making deals with prosecutors for their clients rather than going to trial, I would suggest they should bring in a couple of top-flight British QCs (barristers)with their teams of juniors.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Nov 2 2019 1:25 utc | 89

With Russia and now Ukrainegate, I'm reminded on the Fed dropping interest rates every time the market has a down week. Yet eventually this shot of adrenaline will not work and the market falls through the floor.
So now that Ukrainegate has a huge hole in its chest, do the dems have a plan c, or is this the Big One?
I make this point because there are very many never Trumpers out there, clinging to this spiel, but eventually even they will wake up and where do they go? Do they finally accept the whole system really is rigged?
Eventually the ground under the powers that be will turn to quicksand and this really is a notable earthquake.

Posted by: John Merryman | Nov 2 2019 1:25 utc | 90


An interesting story and video via Fox News.

Ex-acting CIA boss expresses gratitude for 'deep state' involvement in impeachment inquiry

"Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state'," McLaughlin responded, provoking laughter and applause.

The former intelligence official was speaking at an event hosted by George Mason University, joined by former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former CIA Director John Brennan -- both of whom have been critical of the president.

“With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else,” McLaughlin said.

He went on to praise the intelligence community. "This is the institution within the U.S. government -- that with all of its flaws, and it makes mistakes -- is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth," he said.

"It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble in the lobby."

As b stated in a previous post, it is the Borg who should dictate US foreign policy. It certainly is not one of the three branches of government (the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary) of the trias politica model. The Intelligence Community if the Fourth Estate (Vierte Gewalt) that rules supreme over the three other branches of government.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Nov 2 2019 1:29 utc | 91


If you have access to a VPN connect to a server in the EU then you'll get three free page views each time you use incognito mode in Chrome. You'll have to tick a few boxes but it's better than having a U.S. IP address.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Nov 2 2019 1:31 utc | 92

Re: Jackrabbit #83

With respect to your comment "Hillary is smart enough".... I don't doubt that Hillary is fairly intelligent, however there's plenty of evidence that she is also arrogant, contemptuous of rivals, dismissive of critics and surrounded by flattering sycophants. So I think it's quite possible that she had another Gaddafi moment and let her mask slip showing her true feelings on Gabbard and how she utterly despises her for the crime of not giving 100% support for the bi-partisan, warmongering foreign policy.

With respect to Gabbard, I have no idea how serious she is regarding changes to US foreign policy. The mere fact that she is a possible US Democratic candidate shows that she's not a revolutionary figure (or is at least not perceived as such by the DNC), but you don't have to a Lenin reborn to make significant changes to a nation foreign or domestic policies. So I'm inclined to believe her claims of wanting to at least slightly reduce the US role in the US/NATO Empire (though I doubt she'll ever be in a position to follow through on those claims).

Posted by: Kadath | Nov 2 2019 1:31 utc | 93

Yeah, and Hitler and the Holocaust was all legal until.....

I'll stand my ground. To say I'm wrong is to admit the Outlaw US Empire is exactly what I say it is--a complete breech of the US Constitution and UN Charter.

I think I'll go to the market and get some rabbit for dinner.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 2 2019 1:35 utc | 94

Former Director of Central Intelligence recently said that the CIA is devoted to anything other than telling the truth.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 2 2019 1:37 utc | 95

Former Director of Intelligence Pompeo, that should have been.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 2 2019 1:40 utc | 96

US Secretary of State. "We lied, we cheated, we stole."

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 2 2019 1:44 utc | 97

Peter AU 1 @ 81:

"This impeachment show looks to be a rearguard or defensive action to try and stop the Barr criminal investigation into russiagate."

I agree. At first I thought I was perhaps getting too excited about the Justice Department's investigation, but once the whole 'whistleblower' charade got such attention and blew up into impeachment proceedings, that only solidified my feeling that such a hasty and illconsidered development had to be a distraction of major proportions. Maybe I felt that because I don't watch or read msm. I'm out of the loop on a lot of things (such as what's happening to the weather -oops, didn't cover those tomatoes) but bravo to b for the yoeman's job he does ferreting out the inconsistencies. He's a better man than I am!

Posted by: juliania | Nov 2 2019 1:46 utc | 98

Since the UN Charter has the same legal status as Acts of Congress under U.S. law, the AUMF can certainly violate the UN Charter, under U.S. law. The AUMF may violate international law, but that is another matter.

A friend of mine attended a government meeting under President G.H.W. Bush. I believe the subject was the kidnapping of General Noriega from Panama. In any case, I was told that at the meeting William Barr said, "F!!! international law!" And it is well known that(according to Richard Clark) George W. Bush said in the White House the evening of 9/11, "I don't care what the international lawyers say, we're going to kick some ass!"

We are a lawless nation.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 2 2019 1:56 utc | 99


its worth keeping an eye on Pat Lang's blog as part of your daily reading. 'Ex' spooks and military types post articles there as guest authors. Pat Lang is ex DIA, hates commies, is an arrogant grumpy old ... , but at times his and the guest authors pieces are well worth reading.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Nov 2 2019 2:01 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.