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.


bigger

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

Comments
« previous page

Right on, Jackrabbit, Trailer Trash, and Karlof1. The outright distortion of truth about Trump since he first started campaigning has been nothing short of astounding. I'm seeing the same methods being used again. Posters who I usually agree with seem to have taken a hard right turn into Derpy. Trying to promote Trump as not starting any wars is outrageous. By the same measure, neither did Obama. There were no "wars" just "advisors", "Arab Spring", R2P, and insurgencies. In other words, asymmetric war, which is exactly what Trump seems to prefer, too.
IMO, the most galling of all claims is the universal claim that because Obama did something, its OK for Trump to do the same thing. How continuation of illegal and immoral policy is OK because it has precedent says more about the people defending it than those performing it.

I know I am one of those names who just pops up and makes some comments/swipes and disappears again. Sorry, I have time to read most comments, but not enough to formulate responses. I also know I tend to comment mostly about Trump related things. That isn't so much about Trump as wishing people could see through the BS both sides are selling. There are no clean shirts in DC, and I am not interested in the lesser evil choice.

Posted by: sorghum | Nov 3 2019 0:26 utc | 201

evilempire @200

I think you're BOTH wrong.

I agree with you that Trump isn't using "conspiracy theory" to deflect/distract from his short-comings like the article asserts. And the article ignores Trump's main opponents: Brennan, Clapper, Hillary.

But the real Deep State is bi-partisan. IMO Trump vs. Deep State is a mock battle. Kayfabe! Trump knows that it's all for show and so does his main opponents. This pretend conflict was meant to initiate the new McCarthyism - and it has with thousands of hours of pundit talk talk about how Russia "meddled" in the 2016 election.

And also meant to: 1) get a nationalist elected President; 2) pin Wikileaks/Assange as Russian agents; 3) settle scores with Flynn and Manafort.

Lets not be fooled by the partisan cloak over what has occurred.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 3 2019 0:53 utc | 202

Hint:
Both the Dims and the Repugs are capitalists.
While some minor differences on a minor level, they both adhere to a capitalist ideology-
A simple and very minor world.

Posted by: Duncan Idaho | Nov 3 2019 1:18 utc | 203

Jackrabbit i think Curtin would agree with you. The main point
to grok is where the simulation is emanating from. The cfr was
founded by the rockefellers, no doubt with help from the rothschilds
and other magistrates from the unholy inquisition.

Posted by: evilempire | Nov 3 2019 1:39 utc | 204

@ evilempire and jackrabbit about CFR

Isn't it chaired by Pelosi's husband? That should tell you all you need to know.....incest is ok if you keep it in the family..../snark

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 3 2019 2:02 utc | 205

For those who still believe the far-right narrative that the struggle between the West and China is between "civilizations" (i.e. two very different races, with completely different and incompatible cultures), see this:

"The Chinese Communist Party is a Marxist-Leninist party focused on struggle and international domination" -- Mike Pompeo, Nov. 2nd, 2019

Posted by: vk | Nov 3 2019 2:39 utc | 206

"Bringing Them Home? Trump Commits 1,800 More Troops to the Middle East
If Trump wants credit for ending wars in the Middle East, he'll have to actually reduce the number of Americans deployed there."

Is this fake news? Or another play in DJT's fake presidency?

https://reason.com/2019/10/11/bringing-them-home-trump-commits-1800-more-troops-to-the-middle-east/

Posted by: ben | Nov 3 2019 2:58 utc | 207

There are posters here who don't understand how terrible a shooting and bombing war is, and so they compare open warfare with so much death and destruction from artillery, aerial bombing, mortars, and small arms including machine guns ... with sanctions! Imagine that. Complete ignorance of how terrible war is, and how good it is to be mostly free of it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 3 2019 3:38 utc | 208

ben 207
Stationing troops overseas is not war. That's an ignorant position to take.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 3 2019 3:40 utc | 209

This paragragh in the transcript of the telephone conversation came well before Trump asked Ukraine to look into Burisma and Bidens.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyWKAGgHIqDEORgjOyo0uq7JOXzhxOQf/preview
"The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... the server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

A conspiracy like russiagate that involved US intel agencies, perhaps a former US president, plus foreign agencies such as GCHQ would warrant a president to president phone call asking the Ukraine president to assist the US Attorney General.

Rather than Biden, the current impeachment theater is about this paragraph as I put in an earlier comment.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Nov 3 2019 4:07 utc | 210

karlof1 @ 180:

I had in mind the Tim Burton movie version of "Sweeney Todd".

Posted by: Jen | Nov 3 2019 4:08 utc | 211

I believe he said; I'll bring them home, or, maybe I heard wrong.

Honest ignorance happens, and then there's willful ignorance, that's where I believe many people find themselves.

Posted by: ben | Nov 3 2019 4:11 utc | 212

This is for those who have forgotten;


https://www.newsmax.com/AndrewNapolitano/trump-afghanistan-troops-bush/2017/08/24/id/809456/


Trump Breaks Promise to Bring the Troops Home

Read Newsmax: Trump Breaks Promise to Bring the Troops Home | Newsmax.com

Posted by: ben | Nov 3 2019 4:24 utc | 213

Nice moral relativism that dying by bullets or bombs is somehow more horrible than watching your family starve and die for want of food, medicine, a functioning economy, trade, and all of the other various things required for a semblance of modern living. You can make excuses or deflect all you like, but killing is still killing and evil remains evil.

Posted by: Sorghum | Nov 3 2019 4:32 utc | 214

"The claim that Trump is engaged in a pursuit of ending endless wars would be a lot more credible if Sanger or anyone else could point to a single instance when Trump has actually ended U.S. involvement in a foreign war. To date, he has escalated every war he inherited, and the number of drone strikes in less than three years of his presidency far exceeds the number from the entire eight years of Obama’s. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Trump is not averse to using force, and he has sent more troops overseas since becoming president than he has brought back."

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/judge-trumps-foreign-policy-by-his-actions-and-not-his-words/

Maybe, at some point in the future, some people will quit humping DJT's leg. Or, Maybe not...

Posted by: ben | Nov 3 2019 4:33 utc | 215

@ 215 Don't count on it, Ben. It is a cult, and facts don't matter as much as feel-good stories, *exactly* like Obama. In fact, for someone who supposedly hates everything about Obama and wants to erase his presidency, Trump sure does follow the same template, even down to the details of "killing" of the #1 bad guy.

Nice job destroying the myth of ending and/or not escalating wars.

Posted by: Sorghum | Nov 3 2019 4:39 utc | 216

For or against on Trump ending or starting wars misses the repositioning. He hasn't started any new wars yet but vetoed the congress resolution on ending US involvement in the war on Yemen. He greatly increased hostile acts against Venezuela and Iran. US forces are gradually building up in the Gulf region. Trump increased military spending and lowered the threshold for first use of nukes.
Taking the oil is a long held position. Now trump is 'forced' to take the oil when all he wants to do is pull out of Syria....

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Nov 3 2019 4:56 utc | 217

@ Peter AU 1 in comment # 217 with the excellent description of the cognitive dissonance of Trump words versus Trump actions....which to believe in the theatre of our Wag the Dog world?

Just who is doing God's work?

And which God is it?

Is it the Christian God that threw the money changers out of the temple or the God of Mammon that lives with us today in the Western world of global private finance?

Being a believer in reality and of logic and reason that many distrust more than their blind faith, I see no actions occurring at the top that tell me it is the Christian God that the Western leadership are working for.

And so I will keep calling BS on all of the Western leadership actions until they are stopped or I die or am taken out.

Amen.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 3 2019 6:03 utc | 218

The US political system is fiddling while it's financial system and institutions are preparing to collapse.
by: ADKC @ 130 <=no doubt.. also the French have moved their secret banking from Lebanon to Switzerland and that has caused a downturn in Lebanon..this seems to be an MBS led transfer.. and I wonder what it means.. If Lebanon fails if it bank fails, what next.. .. what I see in the states is commercial real estate occupancy is down again; prices are rising, taxes and costs are rising, but long term lease contracts are not being renewed. Waterfront housing is still pumping away, but the regulatory costs added to inland subdivisions has risen higher than expected return. . and just as occurred after the North Sea contracts went to Mexico,, in Houston, Tx, where for each Engineer that left town, a contractor would built build a new strip shopping center there are strip centers going in everywhere.
When i see strip centers under construction I know someone has or is about to fail. ?


it looks like just before 2008 to me... IMO the biggest problem in the USA economy is domestic needs, except for investor lucrative, low income fed. subsidized housing, are not being funded.. things not yet privatized are left to rot.. no roads being repaired, no bridges being replaced, states are trying to squeeze revenues out of those who are making it to pay the salaries of those who have failed and become part of the bureaucracy of the states. Its almost funny to watch as a contractor who goes broke, suddenly becomes the chief regulator, and local authority, at the building and zoning departments. Going broke may be better than a sufficient education if you want a plush government job.
Jobs in fracking oil are disappearing, states are legislating against fracking, and the fed is pushing hard to deny the states the right to protect their own environments. that friction cannot last long. but still no new industry, nothing to compete with China has shown up..the photon farms are producing energy, but no money available at the banks and insufficient education for the economy to produce new industry..
Something is going to give if these conditions don't change.
The EU looks even worse AFAICT.


Posted by: snake | Nov 3 2019 6:48 utc | 219

@Don Bacon at 63:
That's overridden by Nuremberg II. And yes, that's part of UN founding docs, i.e. the treaties under Art. 8.

Posted by: joe | Nov 3 2019 9:24 utc | 220

@ Peter AU1 | Nov 2 2019 2:13 utc | 102 (violation beginning)

Yes, it is as you say, since '86. However, prying more deeply at the less obvious but factual history we see that the "planning a war of aggression" crimes (Nuremberg hanged men for that crime)...which (according to Groves in March of 1944) predated both the conclusion of W2(E) and W2(J) - "the bomb is to be used on Russia" (Groves). (see "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb")

Under (but possibly not known to) FDR the US was planning to blast Russia with nukes, making plans and weapons to do it.

These efforts and this planning continued of course right through the UN Convention and Treaty Ratification, and it seems has never stopped.

Some might conclude that the US has been in violation of the UN Charter and its own USC since the day of ratification. I believe that is 24 October 1945

The lawyer-brain in me suspects, however, that since the planning pre-dates and continues through the ratification, the ratification was from the first instant, fraudulent and therefore moot.

Posted by: Walter | Nov 3 2019 10:57 utc | 221

"...Trump vs the deep state is a mock battle..."

Because, of course, the deep state wanted to blow its cover and destroy yet another layer of society's faith in the "Democracy Show™".

But what was important enough for the empire to lose Syria? To be losing its grip on Latin America? Africa? To lose the TPP and thus its best weapon against China? "...get a nationalist elected President...", the empire fanboi would have you believe.

Yeah, because exceptionalist "America is already the greatest!" Clinton isn't also a nationalist to some shallow thinkers.

But that isn't all! The deep state threw the entire empire into uproar in order to also "...pin Wikileaks/Assange as Russian agents..." because, you know, that was necessary to lock him up and begin to murder him slowly with chemicals like bz.

But wait, there is more! The deep state installed one of their own as President and then engaged in a desperate effort to impeach him in order to "...settle scores with Flynn and Manafort...".

Wut??!?! You mean that the CIA cannot just hack their cars and drive them into bridge abutments or get them on private planes that suddenly experience icing problems while in route? I guess the CIA must be losing its touch! Neither of those individuals had any public political weight so they could be disposed of the old fashioned way if needed, but I guess we are supposed to believe that they are considered important enough to scramble/delay the plans of Project for a New American Century for half a decade.

I know the deep state/establishment isn't opposed to using atom bombs to swat flies, but not in their own house!

The deep state/establishment hasn't been this exposed since the early 1970s. To suggest that they deliberately did this to themselves in order to install a President who is (not really) more nationalist than an individual who has been in their pockets for decades? To do a shallow smear on ONE single journalist? To embarrass two guys whom nobody would have known about in the first place if the shit-storm had been avoided by installing their known quantity Clinton? Utterly ridiculous.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 3 2019 11:17 utc | 222

About an example/quote from That Good (delusional?) Man, Cuomo, (Governor of NY) >

"You know, anyone who questions extreme weather and climate change is just delusional at this point. We have seen in the State of New York what everyone is seeing. We see these weather patterns that we never had before. We didn’t have hurricanes, we didn’t have superstorms, we didn’t have tornadoes." (Cuomo on MSNBC)

"We never had hurrucanes..."

Yeah, right, Andy ol' boy.

........

see "Andrew Cuomo: 'We Didn't Have Hurricanes' Before Climate Change"

film at 11? Yeah, don't cry. On YT as well.

Dumb as a sack of "hammers"...

Posted by: Walter | Nov 3 2019 12:57 utc | 223

Ciaramella has essentially outed himself as the CIA spy in the White house and may have played a much larger role in Russiagate. Gaining whistleblower protection on the Ukraine issue will definitely muddy the waters of the Barr/Durham investigation and make any attempt to dig into his role on that farce seem like politically motivated revenge, if any action isn't blocked completely by some immunity status he may request from Schiff.
Certainly seems as if this is a stumbling block placed in Barr's path.

Posted by: Fractional Ownership | Nov 3 2019 13:02 utc | 224

@222 gruff

Well put. More succinct and humorous than I can be.

The crux is that why would the deep state wish to erode so greatly the trust in these departments of government from which they derive their power? The whole point of the deep state, like the devil, is to try to make it seem that it doesn't exist. This aspect is fundamentally innate to its being.

That is a question that is consistently glossed over when many posters attempt to rebuff the logic of such a question.

Hopefully the avoidance of your question by those posters is not lost on other patrons passing through.

Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Nov 3 2019 13:36 utc | 225

More evidence that Trump is the "peace president", lol:


US troops are reportedly back in military bases in northeastern Syria which they had previously evacuated ahead of Turkey's military action against Kurdish forces in the area.

Also on Friday, US forces began rebuilding a military base in northern Syria’s Sarrin village, south of Kobani, officially known as Ayn al-Arab.

Pentagon chief Mark Esper said the deployment will seek to secure oil resources from Daesh. Washington, he said, will use “overwhelming” force against any other actor challenging the US, including Syria’s own government.

(from PressTV)

I wonder if Uncle Sam is securing a corridor to Turkey so Erdogan's family can resume buying oil stolen from Syria.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Nov 3 2019 14:44 utc | 226

William Gruff @222

A few comments before I respond ...

First, it's really good to have an open forum like moa where we can discuss different theories. Thanks b!

I've tried to explain my view of what the Deep State is and the kayfabe of Russiagate and Ukrainegate. I've done so many times now. Responding to critics of a theory that goes against the grain of popular belief is not just important but necessary or it will be immediately dismissed as bogus. Theories are either disproved or improved by criticism. Both of these outcomes should be welcome by any serious researcher.

I remind readers (once again): I don't have a 'smoking gun' that clearly demonstrates that my theory of Deep State manipulation is correct. Powerful Deep State actors are very careful about what they do. We have to reason from the breadcrumbs that they leave in their wake. Ultimately readers have to decide for themselves the truth of the theory(s).

When doing so, they should be cognizant of the outlandish actions of the Deep State that WE KNOW with certainty over the last several years. Among these are:

Lying to initiate war in Iraq;

the propaganda outfit 'White Helmets' - funded to manipulate Western public opinion;

the Skripal kidnapping (what are they trying to hide?);

the Integrity Initiative - large-scale press manipulation;

Hillary-DNC collusion along with Sanders meekness/'sheepdogging';

Obama and Trump's faux populism, examples: Obama's "clearing the runway" for bank home foreclosures; making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent via a sham known as "The Fiscal Cliff"; "moderate rebel" bullshit; allowing ISIS to grow.


These are things that few would've believed possible a generation ago. But such manipulation has been made possible due to the concentration of media ownership and as well as the media's greater reach via pervasive tv and internet.

At the heart of the discussion of my kayfabe theory is this:

Did the Deep State REALLY suspect that Trump is puppet's puppet?

>> It's been revealed that an FBI informant was working in the Trump Organization for over 10 years. That informant was a childhood friend of Trump's trusted attorney Cohen;

>> It's been revealed that the "Russian influence" on Trump came chiefly from Russian Jewish oligarchs who are more loyal to Israel than to Russia;

Were some members of the Deep State REALLY trying to unseat a sitting President?

Once the objective to elect Hillary failed, why would intelligence professionals risk their reputations by continuing with the farce? Indeed why would they have even begun an operation to discredit Trump when Hillary had compromised national security with her emails? Are they more loyal to Hillary/Clintons than USA?

Brennan talks about how he "served six Presidents". These long-serving, high-ranking officials are not partisan. And even Hillary herself is not partisan. She is not "Left", she is establishment.

Did Hillary REALLY try to win the 2016 election?

If she absolutely HAD TO WIN - to the point of engaging intelligence officials in a plot against Trump - then why did she run a campaign that made mistakes that no seasoned campaigner would make?

She snubbed and insulted Sanders progressives; she took the Black vote for granted; she insulted whites with her "deplorables" smear; and in the last weeks of the campaign she decided not to campaign in the THREE STATES that she KNEW would decide the election - and her decision was against the advice of her advisors (including Bill Clinton).

Why was it so important for Hillary to win? What would Hillary have done differently?

I doubt very much that Hillary would've gone to war with Russia. She's not stupid. She would've done much the same as Trump. But she would suck at it because she has too much establishment baggage to ever convince people that she's a populist. And she has already discredited herself with Russia so she would be an obstacle to any attempt to bring Russia back into the Western fold (something that Trump has made an effort to do - remember Helsinki?)


!!

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

... the deep state wanted to blow its cover and destroy yet another layer of society's faith in the "Democracy Show™".

Well, have they really "blown their cover"? Neocon manipulation, oligarch influence, and the Clinton Network was already well known. What the Deep State did was roll that all up and pin it on the Clintons.

But what was important enough for the empire to lose Syria? To be losing its grip on Latin America? Africa? To lose the TPP and thus its best weapon against China? "...get a nationalist elected President..."

USA is still in Syria... and Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and still has hundreds of bases around the world. Bolosano is now the Trump of Brazil and Moreno is in Ecuador. And, in case you haven't noticed, Trump is using tariffs against China so your TPP against China argument fails.

Yeah, because exceptionalist "America is already the greatest!" Clinton isn't also a nationalist to some shallow thinkers.

She has a lot of elite globalist baggage - especially via the Clinton Foundation. Even if she could play a nationalist, she's certainly not a populist.

But that isn't all! The deep state threw the entire empire into uproar in order to also "...pin Wikileaks/Assange as Russian agents..." because, you know, that was necessary to lock him up and begin to murder him slowly with chemicals like bz.

Well, that's what happened. Are you suggesting that they don't have a hard-on for Assange?

But wait, there is more! The deep state installed one of their own as President and then engaged in a desperate effort to impeach him in order to "...settle scores with Flynn and Manafort...".

Here you are simply employing the strawman that Deep State set up. The strawman is not the Deep State. Brennan, Comey, are/were part of the Deep State, they are not THE Deep State.

Neither of those individuals had any public political weight so they could be disposed of the old fashioned way if needed...

IMO the main objective was MAGA and initiating a new McCarthyism. You're pretending that the settling of scores was equal to that objective or even of greater importance. That they would attempt to incorporate settling scores as part their overall scheme is not surprising or outlandish.

I know the deep state/establishment isn't opposed to using atom bombs to swat flies, but not in their own house! ... Utterly ridiculous.

Your snarky hyperbole doesn't overcome the short-comings of your analysis.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 3 2019 15:00 utc | 227

@jackrabbit

I think one reason people have a hard time grokking what you are asserting is because there is a significant lack of religious/spiritual/occult analysis here, which is not a bad thing. I go elsewhere for that kind of research.

if one were to delve into that aspect of what's going on they may begin to understand the social/alchemical process we are being subjected to and have been subjected to for a very long time.

I think we are at a stage where the revelation of their methods is being purposefully done and by not resisting we are giving our consent. our consent is very important to them. I am additionally worried that those who bring attention to their methods, whether through research and writing or other artistic avenues, that we may be actually participating in an initiation of sorts.

I've found people don't want to talk about this kind of stuff for fear of ridicule, just like most people don't want to be dismissed as wacko conspiracy theorists. I have said this many times to friends and family when I broach this subject: it doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what the .01% believe, and because of the immense power they have consolidated, if they believe in Luciferian principles and they think they can derive power from blood sacrifices, well, it might be worth to at least give some consideration to what we are being directed to pay attention to (Trump 24/7) and what disappears from the headlines (Epstein).

I was listening to the Opperman Report recently (can't figure out which episode) and Ed was talking about a little tidbit that should confound those who see the Clintons and Trump as enemies. When Kushner was trying to get a seat at the table in the White House, the fixer he tapped to help out was Jamie Gorelick. Who be that? from her wikipedia:

an American lawyer who served as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States from 1994 to 1997, during the Clinton administration. She has been a partner at WilmerHale since 2003 and has served as on the board of directors of Amazon since February 2012.[1]

Gorelick served on British Petroleum's Advisory Council, as their top legal counsel after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[2] She was appointed by former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle to serve as a commissioner on the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which sought to investigate the circumstances leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and also served as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae.

while this doesn't really prove anything by itself, it sure adds to my own personal sense that much of what we are seeing is as real as professional wrestling.

Posted by: lizard | Nov 3 2019 16:24 utc | 228

Walter @221--

It's most likely that the Senators who ratified the UN Charter were kept out-of-the-loop regarding the A-Bomb and its actual intended target. The question, What did FDR know has always been a key for me since Cold War behavior via policy surfaced in 1943 within occupied Italy and someone had to formulate and direct that policy--See Kolko's Politics of War for details.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 3 2019 17:45 utc | 229

lizard | Nov 3 2019 16:24 utc | 228
Baby, you kill me!
„...that much of what we are seeing is as real as professional wrestling.“
Ok, may be. You have proof for "... if they believe in Luciferian principles and they think they can derive power from blood sacrifices"?
Or is a revenge for public viewing of professional wrestling? If you go elsewhere for "religious/spiritual/occult analysis" why do you mention such stuff here? No, I do not want to know what "occult analysis" is. Occult is enough.

Posted by: Hausmeister | Nov 3 2019 17:46 utc | 230

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 | 59

Now, if Gabbard were to call on every US soldier to disobey any orders that are illegal that would really be committing political suicide big time! I would certainly hope that she would have more political nous than to do that. I imagine her entire political career would be completely and permanently destroyed - not just her presidency bid. It would be politically toxic. Imagine how it could and would be twisted and enhanced and weaponised against her.

How many US soldiers are regularly committing war crimes around the world through the orders they are obeying (numbers and percent)? How many of those would be willing to think of them as crimes? And contractors? What about the millions involved centrally or indirectly with MIC, what would they think about such a threat to their cash machine?

If Gabbard genuinely wants to carry out reforms to the system (even limited reforms), she should of course not "do as the Romans when in Rome", but she MUST practise sensitivity to the ways of the Romans with wisdom - otherwise she is a guaranteed failure. Trying to reform the system from within can only be possible with - as well as obviously sound ethical principles, which Sanders evidently lacks - measured discretion, vision, willingness to compromise, flexibility, and acceptance of facts on the ground - look at President Putin for the prime example, Xi likewise. Those who would not have her compromise in any way are denying her the chance to have any practical effect whatsoever.

It would be nice if the political system were not so - but simple wishing will not change the weight of reality.

(Nevertheless the existence of some measured criticism of any (wise) compromise she makes can be beneficial as long as it does not get out of hand, as a public expression of desire for Gabbard to go further than she can in fact go, and as counterbalance to the resistance of the Establishment.)

Posted by: BM | Nov 3 2019 18:02 utc | 231

The question, What did FDR know has always been a key for me since Cold War behavior via policy surfaced in 1943 within occupied Italy and someone had to formulate and direct that policy
Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 3 2019 17:45 utc | 229

And what is your considered opinion on that question, Karlof?

Posted by: BM | Nov 3 2019 18:05 utc | 232

Hausmeister @230

Hausmeister: "...You have proof for "... if they believe in Luciferian principles and they think they can derive power from blood sacrifices"?

It's been happening for millennia just our MSM doesn't deem it worthy of a '60 minutes' program? Meanwhile:

Officials say hearts found in Loop alley are not human
By Sun-Times Wire Apr 19, 2019, 8:48pm CDT
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/19/18621290/officials-say-hearts-found-in-loop-alley-are-not-human

Phew... that's a relief ... someone must have left their offal shopping behind in an alley! Stranger things have happened, but sometimes we want to find the easy way to explain and keep the exploration hidden (occult).

Posted by: Jayne | Nov 3 2019 19:21 utc | 233

evilempire @ 200

Thank you for H/T to Edward Curtin link(s). Good Bar-stool here... LOL ;)
http://edwardcurtin.com/revealing-while-concealing-the-invisible-governments-conspiracies/

Posted by: Jayne | Nov 3 2019 19:28 utc | 234

Bemildred @ 156

Bemildred: "...As for the people who are working at this very moment to turn us all into ***obedient suit-droids***, it seems clear on the one hand they can do a lot of damage with their follies, but on the other hand I think they are going to have much bigger problems before long. The utopian technocratic future they dream of looks very infeasible to me..."

However, I'll give 'em they have been mobilized and effective for a 'very' long time -- as they have had previous generations they've primed to keep control of the narrative.

Posted by: Jayne | Nov 3 2019 19:38 utc | 235

Jayne @235: Yup, have to give them that. They never give up. It's getting harder to double down now though. What did Correa say about Moreno, inept and yet very hungery for power, or something like that. But bullshit will only take you so far. A pleasure talking to you.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 3 2019 19:53 utc | 236

BM @231&232--

When I wrote to Gabbard much earlier this year, I shared my letter with the bar, and one of my points was the fact that she obeyed illegal orders on her deployment to Iraq and asked her stance on that issue. I have yet to get a reply from her about that or any of the other points I raised. The point of illegal orders can be raised if one is wise enough to create the proper context--framing of the issue--which in this case would be the Nuremburg Principles that were established by the USA's Justice Jackson. The reality is all that needs to be done is get copies of the UN Charter and US Constitution and show that the former is part of the latter and its law is to be obeyed just as much as Constitutional law is to be obeyed--Who is going to argue against that when it's that clear-cut?

IMO, FDR was unaware of what was being done by subordinates in Italy in 1943 due to the agreements he arrived at with Stalin during their Conferences, but I haven't personally examined his notes or papers to see if that's a proven fact. Kolko examined much in preparing his work as have others after him. Another indicator that such behavior was against White House policy are the actions of Veep Henry Wallace. Much also depends on an assessment of FDR himself. Was he a genuine humanist who produced the One Third of a Nation and Four Freedoms speeches, to cite two of several of the type, or did he write and utter those words just to make political hay? The idea of the UN and its Charter came from FDR. IMO, his outlook was: If we can get along during War with the USSR and its leaders, we can get along during Peace.

On the Week in Review thread, you'll see my reply to juliania and others regarding rewriting the Constitution. One of the reasons I liked Gabbard to begin with was the sense I got that she was as clean as any politico can be from corruption--with avarice and its attendant corruption being the primary cause for the pickle we're in. I recall from my youth hearing politicians rail about the need for Law & Order, as to how tough they'd be on crime. Well, I can't say they were wrong since the US Government's been criminally violating its Constitution since October 24, 1945, the day the UN Charter came into force--yet not one soul's been arrested or fired for its wonton violation. So, yeah, I'm all for Law & Order beginning with a wholesale housecleaning of the Executive and all its agencies, some of which need to be shuttered in the process.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 3 2019 22:17 utc | 237

On the Church Committee, from all I've read this was one of the ongoing battles in the US between those who felt that executive power should control the country versus those who believed in democracy to one degree or another.

I've heard this described as "The King's men" versus the (small-d) democrats. I suppose it has gone on forever in the US. But in this period the lines might be defined by attitudes towards two key figures of the time: John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Though popular figures amongst the US public, the two were highly divisive amongst the big power centers.

The Kennedy murder ensured that the King's men would retain power at home and abroad. But it deeply shocked most people and few believed the story they were told about it. My opinion is that it really set the stage for all of the conflict of the 1960s.

The hardening of the civil rights movement, the war in Vietnam, the RFK/MLK assassinations, and finally Watergate had damaged all the other power centers so badly that the small-d democrats were able to recover the agenda again. First on Vietnam (Church's bills were instrumental in cutting the cash for the war if I recall) and then on the intelligence agencies. There was just too much trouble in the country for any other course. And the United States still, in that era, had a political system that could be pressured to respond to the will of the country.

The Committee was much harder on the domestic offenses of the FBI than the foreign ones of the CIA. The committee was split into two main parts. The one investigating FBI abuses took on a prosecutorial tone. The one looking into the CIA was conducted with an eye towards "historical understanding." (A side note, fwiw: Bill Miller was the staff director for the side of the committee that investigated the CIA. He would become Bill Clinton's ambassador to Ukraine.)

The Church Committee had many flaws - including some "former" CIA employees on its' staff and arch-conservative members such as Barry Goldwater. Little was accomplished legislatively in its wake (the FISA court is one example of a success). It mostly acted as a sort of truth and reconciliation commission. Some truly shocking episodes were put on the public record: MKULTRA is one example. But much was glossed over or missed entirely.

It did have the effect that the role of the FBI and CIA in American life was reexamined and there was some willingness amongst Representatives to challenge those agencies and attempt to restrain them. The Boland Amendment is a prime example of this attitude (and Oliver North's operations are a good example of the Executive branches attitude towards Congress).

It was the first intelligence oversight committee and spawned the permanent ones in the House and Senate. Though it seems like a useless achievement now that those bodies have been so thoroughly captured by the agencies they're meant to regulate.

In short: it made some small progress, but even that was extremely short lived. Some of the bad actors had been removed. No one went to prison.

The battles continued - Carter undone by the October Surprise, the Executive running its policies behind the back of the Representative branch in Iran-Contra. And all of the scandals that the Congress couldn't (or wouldn't) penetrate: Contra cocaine, the S&L scandal, BCCI, all the intense corruption and intelligence activity of the 1980s. In addition to this, one should check out Robert Parry's work on the Reagan administration's aggressive tactics against reporters (amounting to a new COINTELPRO) and "public diplomacy" campaigns.

In any case, the liberals were losing ground. Most of the old guard democrats in the US Senate were knocked out of office in the 1980 election (a whole story in itself). Controversies which emerged, like the Iran-Contra investigation, produced nothing like Watergate. If there was ever anything like the Church Committee again, it John Kerry's small committee's looking into BCCI and into drug trafficking. Of course his findings were largely ignored by the media.

Seems to me all you have left is the USSR coming undone, we get the first neoliberal president when Clinton comes in (partly because of Ross Perot's disgust over George Bush). And after 9/11 we could forget about all oversight of the intelligence agencies. And that's where we are, as far as I can tell... Pompeo goes from being on the oversight committee to running the agency it is supposed to oversee, and other such farces.

---

As a side note, it is remarkable to not how much of the committee's work focused on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. A full subcommittee was devoted to investigating it. It produced one of the five major volumes of findings that the Committee produced. And it spawned the House Select Committee on Assassinations which was tasked with investigating both the King and Kennedy murders.

The CIA pulled some interesting tricks to stymie the Assassination Committee. The work of Jefferson Morley can be check out on this issue (keyword: George Joannides). Robert Blakey, the second lawyer in charge of the Committee's investigation, now questions the findings of the Committee because of the CIA's interference of its' work.

Posted by: Guest77 | Nov 4 2019 1:39 utc | 238

@ Guest77 with the excellent writeup about US spookville history...thanks

I am going to copy this over to this weeks Open Thread because, IMO, it deserves more visibility than it will get 238 comments in on this thread.

Thanks again

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 4 2019 2:07 utc | 239

@238 guest77... thanks.. informative, if discouraging in where the usa is today...

Posted by: james | Nov 4 2019 18:58 utc | 240

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.