Larry Johnson-5x7

Now that we have seen the whistleblower complaint filed by a CIA officer against President Trump, there should be little doubt that it is a fraud and represents an abuse of the whistleblower process. I know genuine whistleblowers (e.g., Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, etc.) and have been one myself. I am familiar with the kind of information one must possess (or should possess) in order to initiate a complaint. This complaint does not even meet the stupid standard. It is a trumped up complaint.

This CIA officer who filed the complaint has no direct evidence or knowledge. He heard things from other people. He was not party to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript. Instead, he cited public media as “corroboration” for his allegations, including reports by John Solomon.

The whistleblower is supposedly an analyst. Pray to God he is not. If this is an example of this clown’s analytical chops then we now know why the CIA has been on the downward slide. Rather than focus on evidence and facts, this guy relied on rumor.

The egregious conduct of the whistleblower is exceeded by the incompetence of the Intelligence Community Inspector General. When the complaint was filed a competent professional IG would have dismissed it immediately because it was based on hearsay. If we follow his logic, every single Presidential conversation with a foreign leader that involves discussion of a policy or issue an analyst does not support could/should become an IG investigation. That is not an intelligence function no matter how sincerely or fiercely the complainant believes their beef merits attention.

It would appear that the Democrats who plotted with this CIA officer were counting on Donald Trump to claim executive privilege on his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky and, based on the same privilege, withhold the whistleblower complaint.

Whoops!! Trump did not play ball. He preempted the Democrat Kabuki theater by releasing the relevant documents and transcripts.  President Trump pre-empted the ability of the Democrats to accuse him of illegal acts by citing his refusal to turnover documents.

How can anyone claiming whistleblower status be allowed to file a complaint on something about which they have no direct knowledge? The entire premise of the intelligence community is the access to reliable sources, i.e., people who have direct knowledge of what they are reporting on. The Dems are in a state of flacid erectus.

To appreciate the lies of the so-called Whistleblower, let us compare his claims with what actually transpired:

The Whistleblower Claims:

The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.

What President Trump Actually Said:

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. . . .

The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

COMMENT–At no time did President Trump say anything about the 2020 election or the need to do something to Biden to preempt his ability to run for the Democrat nomination. Trump’s request was specifically about what happened in light of Joe Biden’s public claim–I REPEAT, PUBLIC CLAIM–that he used the threat of withholding aid from Ukraine unless they fired the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Joe’s cocaine head son, Hunter.

The Whistleblower Claims:

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid:

• initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;

• assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 20 I 6 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016; and

• meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.

What Zelensky Actually Said about Hunter and Joe Biden:

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. . . He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far I as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough. . . .

I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation.

President Zelensky is asking President Trump for more help and strongly agreeing with Trump that the U.S. Ambassador was acting as a foe of Ukraine. To reiterate–the issue of corruption by Joe Biden and his spawn was already in public and was an issue for Ukraine, not just Trump. Again, not one word about the 2020 election or the Democrat scramble to find a candidate. No threat by Trump to withhold aid. No quid pro quo of any type. Joe Biden is on the record in public demanding Ukraine do what Biden wants or else the U.S. would withhold $1 Billion dollars in aid.

The Whistleblower lied. Not a single mention was made of “locating and turning over DNC servers.” This is a complete fabrication by the so-called Whistleblower.

President Zelensky noted that his people had already spoken with Rudy Giuliani and voiced not one single concern about that. And Zelensky said that his Government would fully cooperate with a U.S. law enforcement investigation.

Worth noting that John Solomon of the Hill is out tonight with documents that expose Joe Biden as a liar in this matter.

The heart of the Whistleblower complaint is a lie. The analyst reported hearsay but, as you can read for yourself, was not what was said on that call.

This is an outrageous abuse by the intelligence community. The CIA cannot and should not be trusted. This analyst is an incompetent who does not know how to distinguish between fact and suspicion.

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to RUMORBLOWER NOT WHISTLEBLOWER by Larry C Johnson

  1. turcopolier says:

    I agree with all that but IMO the Democrats will impeach Trump if they have the votes no matter what the truth or falseness of the charges will be. They are now launched on a lemming like assault on his presidency that is led by the marxists among them for the purpose of halting the heartfelt counter-revolution of the Deplorables. a movement that he may well not deserve to lead.

  2. Mathias Alexander says:

    The dems have agreed to loose the next election. What marxists?

  3. PRC90 says:

    This mess will also have the effect of taking (the now strangely silent) Biden off the 2020 board on the grounds of credibility or even criminality.
    Sanders and Warren will then, prematurely, have to move up the board one place and move further into the spotlight.
    That will suit Trump very well, and indirectly, Gabbard. If this is part of some DNC strategic plan then it’s not well thought out for this reason alone.

  4. Barbara Ann says:

    I note that the IGIC ICWPA “Urgent Concern” report form (link below) includes the following on page 2:

    I know about the information I am disclosing here and:
    [] I have direct and personal knowledge
    [] I heard about it from others

    I also note at the bottom of the form that the last revision date was August this year. Just before 12th August perhaps? Now that second tick box choice looks rather out of place on a whistleblower form to me. I’d be interested in seeing the previous version of the form and finding out who revised it.

  5. Donkeyoatey says:

    It appears that this is a political act to enable the steady erosion of the administrations’ ability to govern effectively for as long as the circus is in town. The gamble is, among others, that the steady drumbeat of the parade of hearings, inquiries and misstatements of fact continuing through the campaign season will:
    A) Result in an actual conviction. (unlikely)
    B) Result in a Democratic controlled Senate, House and/or Presidency (moot point)
    3) Insurance policy- gain control the Senate after 2020, so that the impeachment test is judged under new leadership. (They probably believe this)
    Rules of evidence? Due process? Cross examination? What a strange idea.
    As far as his leadership of the movement/counterrevolution? Maybe he’s just the catalyst-the precursor. But he saw the zeitgeist and picked up the ball and ran with it. isn’t that what demagogues do?

  6. indus56 says:

    Not clear that this is incompetence on the complainant’s part or the IG’s, or the media’s for that matter. While incompetence aplenty is in evidence, that evidence speaks to how clumsily they do it, rather than to why they have reached the decision to participate in this. That said, this should be sufficient evidence to warrant the IG’s suspension, and investigation by an IG for the IG’s office. We shouldn’t be holding our breath.

  7. Bill H says:

    Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was “pressuring” Zelensky to investigate Biden. The fact is that there is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. You don’t need to know anything about the Ukranian prosecutor or what he was doing. You don’t need to know anything about Biden’s son or the son’s business dealings. You just have to listen to Biden himself tell the story.
    Two facts are plain in the story as Biden tells it. That he coerced compliance as to Ukraine’s internal governance, and that he used $1 billion of US foreign aid money as an instrument of extortion in order to do it. He himself says so.
    President Trump says in that phone call that, “What Joe Biden did was shameful,” a statement with which I cannot help but agree. The media’s comment in their followup was a stunning, “There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong.”

  8. Terry says:

    I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance at the ballot box and that a majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don’t think the propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I’m not a fan of Trump overall except for a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic.
    Have we really reached the stage where an American Praetorian guard picks our President and the ballot box and electoral college become Imperial window dressing?
    I’m a left leaning Independent but I hope that the Democrats get a tremendous whipping at the ballot box in 2020. I plan to do my small part in that.

  9. turcopolier says:

    mathias alexander
    Sanders, Warren, the Squad, Swalwell, etc.

  10. Jackrabbit says:

    Another attack by the Houthi’s – or any attack that can be pinned on Iran – could mean war.
    Suddenly, a bogus complaint surfaces – from a CIA source(!) – that turns public debate into a partisan wasteland of charge and counter-charge.
    We are not supposed to take notice of this. We are not supposed to apply any thought. We are just supposed to be entertained by the kayfabe.

  11. h says:

    Rep Al Green and Pelosi are on the record stating impeachment of Trump is the only way to beat him in 2020. So, yes, the ‘marxists’ campaign to impeach the President is in full swing. It has been since the day he won. Oh well…
    That said, hardcore radical Left partisans are all in but the moderates and blue dogs are moving to Independent in droves, as they have been since at least 2008. Due to so many moving pieces the strategy at play, as I see it, is to box in the ‘marxists’ although I’d add the neolibs/cons, by stamping their foreheads in bright red/Not American.
    Any who have bothered themselves to keep up with the nonsensical, absurd, counter-productive policy making coming out of DC over the last couple of decades knows/senses a black glove guiding said events. Congress remains their devoted partner in this usurpation. For heavens sake, one only needs to look at their bank accounts to understand many have kissed the ring and benefited greatly. Add to their financial largess the fact most of them should have retired long ago but appear steadfast in their determination to remain until their last breath. One only does that if there is some sort of payoff in the end.
    But I digress. What I see happening is the outing of that black glove, the uprooting of those tentacles and a stake slowly being driven through the heart of their dastardly usurpation. Those who practice these dark arts succeeded over decades of quietly and patiently infiltrating every institution in the U.S. and by publicly outing their dark deeds, such as this latest attempt to smear the President, the public is ever so slowly awakening to their game. They are finally beginning to ask questions, whereas in the not so distant past, they ignored it all.
    As Larry suggests, these useful idiots weren’t expecting Trump to release the phone transcript let alone the RumorBlower’s report to the public. All one needs to do is a simple comparison and contrast to discern where the truth lies. Americans nor the world’s citizens are stupid.
    President Trump and his team are doing a masterful job in corralling these usurpers into a corner, giving them plenty of rope and will continue to choke off avenues they once took for granted would always be open to them.
    I look forward to Trump’s next move…

  12. Diana C says:

    I have no comment to this latest “production” of the Democratic Party. That is because Adam Schiff pushed it out of the political and into the dramatic with his rendition (he called it a parody) of a Mob Boss.
    Jean Paul Sartre is enjoying this wherever he may be. We are now truly living in the realm of the absurd and there seems to be “no exit.”

  13. Barbara Ann says:

    Seems I’m not the only one to have noticed this (thread).
    As of now the IGIC hotline page, where the above report form is now linked, has a broken link at the bottom called “Submit a form online”. This points to a (missing) Word document at the following address:
    Why have 2 links, is this the old form? Maybe someone here can confirm what the pre August 2019 report form looked like. If the IGIC get caught gerrymandering their website and reporting processes to cover up this latest attempt to get at Trump we’ll should see some real fireworks.

  14. LA Sox Fan says:

    I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower complaint, I immediately looked at the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033. Read it for yourself if interested.
    While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this “intelligence activity whistleblower” complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG.
    Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over.
    Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an “intelligence activity whistleblower” complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
    Same as a “whistleblower” complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail or that there is no toilet tissue in the Yellowstone National Park men’s room is not an activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject of an “intelligence activity whistleblower” complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or his phone calls is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
    Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt.

  15. semiconscious says:

    wow! very good catch…
    why would an urgent concern form allow for the submission of hearsay as testimony?…

  16. Bill H, Joe Biden served as the point man for the Obama administration’s effort to root out some of the corruption rampant in the Ukrainian government. The IMF and EU were also pushing this. This was probably the only non-shameful aspect of our terribly misguided and implemented policies concerning Ukraine. I’m still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. Screwed the pooch on that one, didn’t we?
    Biden boasted of bullying the Poroshenko government into getting rid of chief prosecutor Victor Shokin, a notoriously corrupt individual who refused to investigate corruption by oligarchs and government officials. Shokin stymied any investigation into Mykola Zlochevsky and Burisma. His stonewalling led to a Britsh fraud and money laundering case against Zlochevsky and Burisma to fall apart. In my opinion Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden in an effort to protect himself from US efforts to root out corruption. This didn’t help Zlochevsky or Shokin. The US and Biden still pushed for the firing of Shokin and the investigation of Zlochevsky and Burisma in spite of Hunter’s position at Burisma.
    The Trump-Guliani effort to paint the story as Joe Biden shielding his son from prosecution is a pure fabrication. Biden was part of the whole ugly Ukraine mess orchestrated by the Nuland-Clinton crowd at DOS and fully supported by Obama, but Biden’s part in the firing of Shokin was a rare bright spot in that mess. Hunter Biden’s accepting the position and money from Burisma is an embarrassment, but far from a crime.

  17. The Beaver says:

    Mr Johnson
    You wrote this:
    He was not party to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript.
    and yet on page #3 the WB wrote this:
    . I was not the only non-White House official to receive readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Dept and IC officials were also briefed on their contents of the call …( abbreviated for easy typing )
    Am I missing something since POTUS keeps mentioning second hand info whilst it looks like the WB did have a readout?

  18. “Read out” is second hand info. Being told something without having heard the conversation or read the actual transcript is know as HEARSAY. got it?

  19. Old_it_guy says:

    If the matter is as serious as alleged..then how can one take anything said by Mr. Schiff seriously when he jokes about the whole conversation , according to his own words ,after the spectacle he made.
    Has he mental illness or just no impulse control?

  20. artemesia says:

    Well done, and thank you to Barbara Ann and to all those, like Col. Lang, who put their time and talent to creating & maintaining sites like this that are civic virtue in action.

  21. Factotum says:

    Voters need to stop electing Democrats. As long as they do, we remain mired in our noble experiment of representative government.
    What makes Democrats still win elections? That is the question we need to address. When did we become servants of our government; rather than the other way around. That historical path needs more attention.
    Could it have started when JFK unionized government employees and allowed government employee union members, fronted by the Democrat Party, to ensure who would sit on both sides of the lucrative public bargaining table?

  22. Factotum says:

    I suspect Gabbard is being held in reserve for the VP slot, since the top slot contenders are all crazy and will need some balance on the ticket.
    Is Gabbard that craven she will allow her political future go into free fall, hooking her wagon to any of the doomed to fail Democrat candidates. She cannot win 2020 on her own – she needs the Democrat machine behind her. But she has earned no points to be leading it. Yet.

  23. John Merryman. says:

    I’m starting to see Trump as the Joker incarnate. Any sane effort to take down the deep state would have been quickly quashed, but he has them all shooting themselves in the foot.

  24. Factotum says:

    Trump already made his next move- appointing Scalia as Secy of Labor – that is where the deep swamp action is really going on – the big public sector unions who are screaming bloody murder about this appointment.

  25. luke8929 says:

    It is starting to appear that foreign policy under Obama and the Democrats was simply a government sponsored money laundering operation. The gig being that a certain percentage of the money the US and other governments gave to Ukraine was then sent back to Democratic/Liberal supporters in the form of salaries or contracts. I would imagine most NGO’s who support Democratic or Liberal governments are in part funded this way, they then in turn use the money to support their re election efforts. I would imagine the reason the Democrats are holding up many of Trump’s nominations for embassy positions is that much of this was run through those offices.
    I suppose this is how AIPAC has become such a force in American politics, money sent to support Isreal is sent back through contracts and salaries and other assorted shenanigans. This has been going on for over 50 years, no wonder they are so entrenched in the US government policy machine.
    I could not figure out why Canada’s current PM Trudeau, given his fathers penchant not to involve Canada in any foreign disputes, especially those the US was involved with, was so eager to get involved in the Ukraine. Of course its obvious now why he appointed Freeland who is of Ukranian background to the position of Minister of foreign affairs. They both have ties to the Atlantic Council and other NGO’s who are associated with Ukraine in some fashion. The allegation being that the Liberal party has in part been funding its re-election bid with some of the money sent to Ukraine and funneled back the Biden way. Of course it will never be investigated properly up here as both the senior management of the RCMP, the judicial system and the media are full of liberal appointed or promoted hacks.
    I would imagine that it goes further than the Ukraine as well, in fact any country that the US provides aid to has to be under suspicion. I always wondered why the Dutch and the Australian’s were so interested in the Ukraine and the airliner that was shot down, bet this goes much deeper than we have been allowed to see so far.

  26. a lurker says:

    You should post this under Dreher`s “Trump Is The Deep State” dribble he posted yesterday.

  27. Factotum says:

    Time for the classic Ronald Reagan face down of the Democrat politics of personal destruction smear machine …….”.aw shucks, there you go again”.
    And with that, Reagan ended and closed down the assaults. Time to get our of the weeds the Democrats keep planting that are keeping far too many of us on the defensive. Just tell them …aw shucks, there you go again.
    Their modus operandi is established, their intent is confirmed, they just switch out body parts now hoping there is an Achillies heel in there somewhere.

  28. Factotum says:

    Why isn’t Schiff getting called as an Italian-hating racist after his malignant use of an outdated cultural stereotype.

  29. K says:

    Swalwell and at least half the squad are too stupid to even be Marxists. Nevertheless they are a serious threat.
    And though far from perfect, Trump still deserves support. The opposition is grinding not only him but the public down, day by day. They make people long for “normal” politics to return. It is almost unbearable. But we must stay in the game, or they win.

  30. K says:

    I am in awe. It will take weeks for anyone in the press to catch up to you. Well done!

  31. artemesia says:

    Now that’s an interesting re-direction of focus, TTG.
    But “Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?”
    Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama — embarrassments or crimes?
    By what right, based on rule of law and principles of UN Charter that proscribe a nation’s involvement in the domestic affairs of another nation, does the US presume to ” root out some of the corruption rampant in the Ukrainian government?”

  32. K says:

    It doesn’t have to be a crime to be relevant in the context of the 2016 and 2020 elections. If we are so easily confused as to what has actually been going on Ukraine, that both parties are hopelessly smeared in the scent of corruption and failure, what exactly are we doing there? Why are we giving them billions?
    And if you are not convinced that $50k a month in pay off for a do-nothing connected American board member is actually a crime, what do you make about the $1.5B from the Bank of China? Is that also excusable?
    You are free to loathe Trump, but right now the very fabric of our Constitution is at stake and Trump is not the only pouring kerosene on it.

  33. K says:

    There’s an interesting piece in Frontpage this morning about this very issue.
    Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES the US to interfere in Ukraine’s system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause).
    I’d be interested in what others make of this.

  34. K says:

    Thank you. This really is the most fascinating thread I’ve seen in recent memory.

  35. artemesia says:

    I’d like to see a serious conversation between Tim Ryan & Tulsi Gabbard.
    It’s apparent the PTB do not like him — he gets 0 airtime or mention, which suggests to me that he might have some things to say that are meaningful to the Great Unwashed.
    He is from RustBelt Ohio and is more interested in jobs & redevelopment of communities than in Culture Wars.
    Sure would like to see Ryan either come from behind — while, um, recalibrating his tune on FP, or,
    with the knowledge that he can’t win, out-Tulsi Tulsi in criticism of USA’s Israel first policy.
    “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

  36. K says:

    I believe this was a running joke for a season on “Veep.” It was a pretty funny one, but if you are right it was all too true (hence as funny as Schiff’s “parody”).

  37. LA Sox Fan says:

    Hearsay is any statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It can be confusing. For example. Assume I was in an automobile accident. Moments after the accident, I said to the other driver “You ran the red light.” In court, a witness who heard my statement cannot testify about it if that testimony is being used to prove the other party ran the red light. The matter being asserted is the other driver ran the red light. The witness is testifying to prove the light was red. It is a hearsay statement.
    However, if I were claiming to have been knocked unconscious for a week by the accident, my “You ran the red light” statement would not be hearsay if the same witness was testifying to prove I was conscious after the accident. Here, the statement is not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (The other driver ran a red light) but to show I wasn’t knocked unconscious by the accident.
    There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule which would takes about 3-weeks of a law school evidence class to explain. I don’t have the time..
    Here, the so-called whistleblower is claiming that others told him what was said during the call. That is hearsay, (a statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, aka-what was said is true.) If he heard to call himself, it wouldn’t be hearsay as to what he heard. If he read the transcript, then him testifying about what he read would not be hearsay either.

  38. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Here are links to six John Solomon columns dealing with the Bidens and Ukraine:
    Let me also add some thoughts of my own:
    0) I have carefully read the 2019-08-25 “urgent concern” of the Complainant.
    It is a carefully-written, very-well-documented account of what its author believes are, essentially, impeachable offenses.
    It is in fact quite useful, giving such a good account of one view of things.
    It is a big, big mistake to attack it merely on the grounds that it is reporting things other people have said, i.e., “hearsay”.
    Such attacks, while true, do not detract from its argument.
    There are, however, several other ways to attack its argument.
    1) First, he is clearly giving only one side of things.
    It is crucial to obtain a balanced, more accurate, view of things by giving the other side of the argument, as John Solomon does in what is linked to above.
    Hopefully other countervailing views can be expressed.
    2) Point out flaws in his reporting, as LJ has done so well above.
    3) Ask the question “So what?”
    The writer, and practically all of the media I have read, essentially assumes the equation:
    “US national security” = “Preventing Russian domination of Ukraine”.
    My view: This is not merely wrong, but insane.
    What on earth does US national security have to do with the territorial boundaries or geopolitical orientation of Ukraine?
    Look, in the 1970s I was very involved with supporting US national security.
    What did that mean back then?
    It meant, for example, preventing West Germany, with its vast industrial and scientific capabilities, from becoming part of the Communist block.
    That would really have changed the geopolitical balance between “The First World” and “The Second World”, to use terminology in use back then.
    Does anyone really believe that Russian domination of the Ukraine would have the same effect on geopolitics as the USSR controlling the FRG (i.e., West Germany).
    Ukraine is not West Germany.
    As I said, that is really insane.
    Yet we see both reporters and columnists in, for example, the Washington Post claiming the Ukraine is vital to the U.S. national interest.
    See, for example this ludicrously overwrought recent David Ignatius column:
    “Trump compromised our security for his gain.”.
    “Compromised our security”? Please, David.
    4) On the corruption issue:
    Think about it. If Hunter Biden’s last name had been Smith, and he, even with the work and educational background that he did have,
    (see this article for an extremely detailed, 27-page, examination of that)
    had been just the son of some nondescript middle-manager in America. would he EVER have been have been put on the Board of Directors of Burisma?
    Never in a million years.
    So the only reason he was put there was because of the position of his father, Joe Biden.
    Now ask another question:
    Assume that the Obama administration had valid reasons for wanting the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin.
    Why was Joe Biden given the job of pressuring for that dismissal?
    Why not, say, SecState John Kerry?
    Or some other member of the administration.
    Maybe even Obama himself.
    Why was Joe given that job? Especially considering the connection between his son and Burisma, which was generally considered part of the Ukraine corruption mess.
    So why on earth didn’t Joe say,
    “Sorry, I have a family connection there. Better have someone else put the pressure on.”?
    Evidently WaPo and most of the rest of the media doesn’t see a problem there, but it is very strange that they do not see the problem.
    5) One final point: The “dirty” point.
    The media is playing a word game, by consistently, and I mean really consistently, describing any effort to examine and publicize the issues Solomon raised above as
    “Dirt”, as in “digging up dirt”.
    Why prejudice the effort to shed some sunlight on such issues as “digging for dirt”.
    After all WaPo‘s motto is “Democracy dies in darkness”.
    So why call the effort to shine some light on the Biden/Ukraine connection as “digging for dirt”?
    The hypocrisy is plain for me to see, if not for the people at WaPo.
    6) And one afterthought:
    On the identity of the “Whistle-blower”, sundance makes a guess here:
    ““Gossip-blower” is Male CIA Operative Formerly Part of White House NSC…”,
    namely Michael Barry.
    I have no idea if that is true, merely passing on sundance’s thoughts.

  39. blue peacock says:

    My question is why this Ukraine brouhaha NOW? The timing of why the media wurlitzer is spun is always interesting to me.
    Trump’s call with Zelensky took place in July just after Mueller published his report. Trump suspects that folks in Ukraine may have information regarding Crowdstrike and the DNC server “hacking”. So it is a legitimate request IMO considering attacks on him, his kids and his administration around Russia Collusion. The whistleblower made his complaint now. Why? Who actually wrote the complaint as Robert Willmann notes in an earlier thread it was likely a lawyer. It seems it was coordinated with the House Democrats and the MSM as they both latched on to it with similar talking points immediately in a highly coordinated manner.
    My speculation is that they didn’t count on Trump immediately declassifying and releasing it to the public and further going on the attack along with Rudy to paint Biden and his son in the vortex of potential corruption.
    Now we are back to he said, she said and the usual confusion. It would be good to read opinions on what was the goal here as the bar to an impeachment conviction is very high. No President in the history of our country has been convicted by the Senate. What were the political motives for the Russia Collusion redux with this Ukraine “quid pro quo”?

  40. blue peacock says:

    Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we’re at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties.
    Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don’t know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we’ve seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn’t even pass the laugh test as Hunter’s most recent experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?
    Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John Kerry’s stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know.

  41. Diana C says:

    That is a very good question. The Italians have a right to claim they are also victims of racism.

  42. Factotum says:

    Why now? The Kavanaugh smear fell apart. This was the next Trump “scandal” on the Democrat’s Roladex. There will be more until Nov 2020, and there after. We know this now, so no cause for alarm. Even Saul Alinksy warned about over-playing your hand. Democrats have over-played their hand.

  43. Factotum says:

    K, you might want to stick with the actual language, instead of your odd interpretation stating the US is “required to interfere in Ukraine’s system of justice”.
    Here is the treaty language from your link:
    Article 1 that “[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.”

  44. blue peacock says:

    Since the public have access to the transcript now the questions then becomes was Trump’s request inappropriate during the call, was there a quid pro quo, are any of the assertions by the whistleblower accurate, was this a legitimate complaint or was it a political statement to gin up controversy?

  45. walrus says:

    Australia is interested because 27 nationals were killed on MH17.

  46. walrus says:

    This is creating an opening for Hilary to run again.

  47. akaPatience says:

    I absolutely agree Factotum! This is just the latest chapter in the continuing saga, Impeachment Zombies.

  48. Barbara Ann says:

    Sundance thinks Lawfare wrote it. The ‘whistleblower’ is simply the delivery platform for their latest weapon. Given the legalistic style, their involvement in Russiagate and the similar modus operandi this seems a reasonable guess. Lawfare themselves (who are clearly Resistance central) are already trumpeting success.

  49. K says:

    In my defense, I am NOT a lawyer and only threw the article out there for the consideration of others.
    Like most normal Americans, I am blithely unaware of all the ways our country has been drawn into the machinations of parts of the world where I believe we don’t belong.
    These spiderwebs are now two decades old. Trump walked right into them. Now at least we see them for what they are, or are beginning to see their outline in the dark.

  50. Barbara Ann says:

    Stephen McIntyre (a sometime commentator here on Russiagate) whose Twitter I linked to above has had his investigation of the form doctoring picked up already. He thinks it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature of the rumorblower’s report.

  51. turcopolier says:

    IMO the Clinton apparat has been at the root of much that has happened. It still exists and hopes for a stalemate in the Democratic nomination process.

  52. K says:

    Masterpiece! Bravo.
    I have to say, I have become rather a pariah since shifting reluctantly (post-election) into the Trump camp. My spouse and I absolutely cannot talk about it at all, since the last time we did I ended up spending several days camping out at a friend’s place. I have one close friend from college who has taken a similar trajectory and we are like shipwrecked soulmates in the midst of a violent storm (that doesn’t end!).
    It means the world to me to be able to read so many well-thought out posts and comment threads. It is much better then Twitter (I have exiled myself from Facebook).
    Thank you for this blog. God bless.

  53. blue peacock says:

    Spot on!

  54. John Merryman says:

    The irony here is that Trump originally beat the Republicans. You know, Bush/Cheney and company. If the Democrats had played by the assumption that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and tried to at least work around Trump and let him stew in his own juices, rather than taking the low road and just throwing as much mud as possible, they would be in far better shape than they are. What if a Democrat ever becomes president, ever again? How would they govern, given the destruction to the system, they are engaging in? It is much easier to tear down, than build up.
    If I were to guess the direction of this country, it will be that disaster capitalism/predatory lending comes home to roost and those with the largest piles of treasuries, likely bought pennies on the dollar, when the debt bubble bursts, will be trading them for the remaining public assets, facilitated by those functionaries who know who their future employers are.
    Then we find out what true oligarchy is.

  55. Fred says:

    They were all smart enough to get elected to Congress.

  56. Fred says:

    Misquoting something or someone and preceding from that is an old troll tactic.

  57. Artemisia, The whole Obama Ukrainian fiasco would be a fascinating subject for investigation. The decade long Orange Revolution project was a high water mark in As Obama’s point man on this project, Biden would have a lotto sweat over such an investigation. However, his part in getting Shokin fired is not part of his problem. Shokin slow rolled the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky for years. He even fired one of his assistants who was trying to push the investigation along. His firing was a good thing. In spite of this, some think Trump was referring to Shokin when he talked about a “very good” and “very fair” former Ukrainian prosecutor in his phone call to Zelensky. Trump may have fallen for Shokin’s version of events.
    Zlochevsky hired Hunter most likely as an insurance policy given that his father was Obama;s point man for Ukraine. He probably hoped that would force the US and Biden to back off. Ukrainian business and politics have been notoriously corrupt since soon after the breakup of the Soviet Union so Zlochevsky’s move was in line with modern Ukrainian culture, just as Shokin’s antics as chief prosecutor.

  58. Blue Peacock, I’d like to get the read out on all those conversations. So far, all we have is the “F the EU” phone call between Nuland and Pyatt. I’d also like to get a readout of Trump’s one on one discussions with Putin. I wonder how they compare with his conversation with Zelensky.
    The real deal between Hunter and Burisma was that his hiring was supposed to serve as a shield for Burisma, Zlochevsky and Shokin. Unfortunately for them, the shield failed when the US and Biden went after Shokin in spite of Hunter’s bogus seat on the board of Burisma. Hiring Hunter was clearl an attemp to influence, just as the massive flows of donations to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary appeared to be on the ascendency, and all the foreign and domestic money now flowing into Trump properties. It doesn’t mean it will work, but it is a clear effort to buy favor. I would not be surprised that the Chinese money to Hunter was the same thing.

  59. Factotum says:

    What is the back story about breaking news reports that Whistleblower statute and complaint form was very recently revised that now allows second-hand reporting.
    Was there also a problem with back-dating this complaint to slip under the new policy? So much for the “hearsay” rebuttal under these very new, brand new, new guidelines.

  60. semiconscious says:

    just found this myself. you were well ahead of the curve on this one! & it is seriously damning, imo. when you’re basically forced to bend or alter the rules in order to gain any kind of advantage, you’ve basically admitted that you can’t win honestly…
    frustrating that this information, & similar information, will simply go unmentioned in the msm. back in the day, the msm would spin things that ran counter to the narrative. today? they simply ignore them…

  61. optimax says:

    John Solomon Has another article on The Hill. The gist being:
    “Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.
    And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
    A year after his appointment, the replacement prosecutor dropped the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine is in the clutches of the IMF. This looks like a future of austerity and privitization of the countries resources. The Bidens are just the public faces of a deeper corruption.

  62. Eliot says:

    Col. Lang,
    “a movement that he may well not deserve to lead”
    He’s all we have.
    – Eliot

  63. LA Sox Fan says:

    Since the “intelligence activity whistleblower complaint” had nothing to do with an “intelligence activity” as was legally required, the drafting and filing of this particular “intelligence activity whistleblower complaint” were political acts. They accomplished their mission in that Trump was forced to release the call and the complaint to the public, instead of him delaying and Congress leaking them. The complaint has resulted in what appears to be an attempt to impeach Trump, so politically it was very successful.
    If it were a legitimate complaint, the DNI could look into the problem and fix it. That’s why these types of complaints must concern activities and individuals that the DNI is responsible for, so the responsible government official, the DNI, can fix the problem. As this complaint is illegitimate, because the DNI can do nothing about the problem, no government official will investigate because none has the authority to do so.
    Instead, Congress will investigate with an eye towards impeaching the President. Will we discover truthful answers to your questions, either from Trump or Congress’ investigation? I have no idea. Personally, I doubt it.

  64. Factotum says:

    Remember in 2008 when defeated candidate Hilary Clinton wore an orange pantsuit to the DNC nomination night for Barack Obama, when supreme gracitousness was required after Obama (SEIU and ACORN) stuck a knife in her back during the primaries.
    The story was Clinton was saying one thing with her words, but sending another message to her supporters with her wardrobe choice.
    Lots of clucking about her color choice and her sympathetic relationship to the “orange revolution” at the time. How does that figure into the events of the day?

  65. Factotum says:

    Found on the Aug 2019 revised WhistleBlower complaint form: Easily worth the $10,000 fine for some “former Obama official” to lie if it strings up Trump … more time.
    ☐ *I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001, knowingly and willfully making a false statement or concealing a material fact in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, including the ICIG, is a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000.00, imprisonment for up to five (5) years, or both.

  66. Eric Newhill says:

    Gabbard has now broken her oath, sold her soul and jumped aboard the impeachment train. I Knew she was just another phony political animal from day 1

  67. CK says:

    ” all the foreign and domestic money now flowing into Trump properties.” Hotel room rentals? Expense account meals? Playing fees on the various gold courses? Are you suggesting that somehow these retail transactions are influential? The faint whiff of Peppermint Patchouli or TDS floats on the autumn air.

  68. CK says:

    One would hope that eventually they will raise their aiming points.

  69. turcopolier says:

    Amen, brother.

  70. Eric Newhill says:

    We still have ourselves and the 2A. Imagine a couple million well armed “deplorables” defending on DC (and the mission is not to “raise awareness”). Imagine truckers striking and refusing to deliver food and fuel to DC, NYC, LA, San Francisco. Imagine cell towers and key junctures of the electric grid leading to those places going down. Imagine 10s of millions of deplorables refusing to pay taxes.
    Or we can accept the death of the republic and accept being ruled by elitist globohomo socialists that hate us and intrude into all aspects of our lives – and tax us without representation
    IMO, a critical decision making time is met if this coup d’etat succeeds – fortunately I think it won’t be this time around, but that day is coming in the next ten years.

  71. Factotum says:

    ResState delves into the Whistleblower Revised-Form Gate:
    Smoking gun here and is this why Adam Schiff knew so much about this well Whistleblower complaint before it broke into the public?
    What is the public review and hearing process for any federal form revisions? FOIA please. Jusicial Watch, rescue us again.

  72. Jack says:

    IMO, we have this Russia Collusion redux with this new Ukraine quid pro quo hoax, precisely because Trump has never used the power of his office and his administration to go after the Spygate coup plotters. Other than tweet furiously he’s not done much of anything else.
    When Devin Nunes, who has been a big spokesman on the shady dealings of Brennan and Comey advised Trump to declassify much of the machinations of these people, he initially agreed to only be dissuaded by Rosenstein, who it seems was willing to wear a wire to entrap Trump. Then he apparently delegated the decision on declassification to Barr who has sat on it for months. This has allowed the coup plotters the time and space to continue to bring him down.
    I don’t know the vicious world of DC power games but it seems to me that if you’re gonna go against the Deep State you should not hire them in key positions in your administration nor should you give them an opportunity to continue to plot your demise. They are going to continue to attack him with one thing or another until something clicks and can take him down. His inability or unwillingness to use the power of his office to take his enemies out could very well be his undoing. What a legacy it would be for him if he’s the first president in US history to be convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial!

  73. Factotum says:

    RedState – Whistleblower Revised Form Gate:
    …”Here’s the biggest red flag with that. That complaint was so well written, so thorough, that there’s noway it wasn’t done over the course of weeks with involvement of others.
    Yet, it was submitted just days after this rule change was finalized and the news forms revised. That points directly at the whistle-blower and his team not only being aware the rule change would happen, but that the rule change was made specifically for them……”

  74. artemesia says:

    Do you consider the Obamas part of the Clinton apparat?
    Disagree w/ Walrus @ Sept. 27 that a opening is being created for Hillary — she’s far too tainted, and old.
    But Michelle — now there’s a pitcher in the bullpen.

  75. Factotum says:

    More from RedState: Re: Aug 2019 Whistleblower form revisions
    d****** • 2 hours ago
    There are 2 key pieces to the rules changes: (1) The whistleblower no longer needs 1st hand knowledge, and (2) the IC IG (Atkinson) can bypass the DNI (Maguire) and submit the complaint directly to the Congressional Intel Committees, if he (Atkinson) disagrees with DNI (Maguire) opinion, which is exactly what Atkinson did on 9/9/19 by composing a letter to Schiff and Burr. Now, I know Schiff had this complaint long before that, as he had a letter addressed to him on 8/12 and was leaking via twitter details by 8/28.
    If you want to know who changed the rules, I’d start with Atkinson the IC IG, who used the new rules to approve and pass on the WB complaint, but wouldn’t put it beyond Gordon or Coates changing them before they left on 8/15. Coates has stated publicly he knew nothing about the WB complaint, before he left. Gordon (the Obama holdover) has remained notably silent, however.

  76. All,
    An interesting article in ‘Sputnik’ by Ekaterina Blinova provides some conjectures about the background to Trump’s curiosity about the server, drawing on work done by Petri Krohn.
    (See ,)
    He has played a pivotal role on the ‘A Closer Look On Syria’ website, which has for some years been a centre of frequently extraordinarily useful collaborative work not just on that country but on Ukraine.
    (See )
    So Krohn’s suggestions, while they clearly need critical examination, should I think be accepted by anyone seriously interested in the truth as deserving serious discussion.
    His argument is that there probably were real hacks, but that ‘Fancy Bear’ and ‘Cosy Bear’, rather than from Russia, are likely to have been from Ukraine.
    Their activities would probably have been the product of collusion between elements in that country’s security services and ‘CrowdStrike’, ‘false flags’ produced as part of the wider effort to cover up the fact that the materials from the DNC obtained by ‘WikiLeaks’ were the result of a leak.
    (What is however not mentioned by ‘Sputnik’ is the now overwhelming body of evidence that the leaker was Seth Rich. That said, while the panic produced by his murder is likely to have been part of the background to the way the conspiracy to subvert the Constitution went into ‘overdrive’ from mid-July 2016 on, it cannot explain either the initial claims by ‘Crowdstrike’ or the origins of the dossier attributed to Christopher Steele.)
    Here, however, it may help to return to one piece of demonstrable fact which tends to get forgotten.
    Its relevance has become even more salient, in the light of the suggestion – to my mind plausible – that the ‘Lawfare’ group may have been centrally involved in the production of the material attributed to the supposed ‘whistleblower’, as also in other elements of the conspiracy.
    It is important to recall that the claims by Alperovitch were rapidly backed up by the supposed ‘smoking gun’ evidence from the metadata of the ‘Guccifer 2.0’ materials provided by the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.
    To make sense of his contribution, it is useful to look at his page on the ‘Lawfare’ site.
    ‘Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.’
    (See .)
    As to the ‘Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law’, the entry for Robert Chesney on the site is helpful:
    ‘Bobby Chesney is the Charles I. Francis Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas School of Law. He also serves as the Director of UT-Austin’s interdisciplinary research center the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. His scholarship encompasses a wide range of issues relating to national security and the law, including detention, targeting, prosecution, covert action, and the state secrets privilege; most of it is posted here. Along with Ben Wittes and Jack Goldsmith, he is one of the co-founders of the blog.’
    (See )
    If one scrolls down through Tait’s contributions to ‘Lawfare’, one will find his 28 July 2016 post ‘On the Need for Official Attribution of Russia’s DNC Hack’ which describes how, supposedly, he identified the ‘smoking gun’ evidence of GRU responsibility in the ‘metadata’ of the ‘Guccifer 2’ materials.
    For a complete version, with all the linked material, one needs to go to , but that on his site has two key paragraphs about the results of Tait’s supposed ‘investigation’:
    ‘One of the facts it turned up was that the hackers were opening the documents in a virtual environment configured in Russian, and that the username of one of the virtual computers in this environment was Фе́ликс Эдму́ндович – a reference to Felix Dzerzhinsky, a huge statue of whom stood in pride of place in the Lubyanka Square opposite KGB headquarters, now FSB headquarters, until 1991.
    ‘It’s an operational security failure by a group whose malware was riddled with other basic operational security failures. While amusing at first, the hackers’ attempts to address it in future leaks was so overt and ham-fisted that it just served to highlight the initial error.’
    Some of us might be disposed to say that one needs to be very ‘ham-fisted’ indeed to put the name of the Polonised Lithuanian nobleman who founded the Cheka into a ‘false flag’ operation designed to implicate the GRU.
    It would seem that someone totally ignorant of the history of the devastation which Dzerzhinsky’s successors inflicted on the Red Army’s General Staff, and in particular its military intelligence, and the way that this came close to resulting in the destruction of Russia, is likely to have been responsible.
    In a comment some time back I noted that the cybersecurity consultancy ‘Capital Alpa Security’, of which, as the ‘Lawfare’ entry explains, Tait was CEO, and which we were given to understand had provided him with an independent livelihood, was ‘dissolved via compulsory strike-off’ on 24 July 2018.
    In its short lifespan – the company was incorporated on 15 February 2016 – it had never submitted anything other than a single set of ‘Accounts for a dormant company.’
    (See .)
    Since I posted that comment, fresh information which may – or may not – be relevant, has become available.
    And here, the British ‘angle’ seems to me to be become ever more complex, and more critical.
    The case which Svetlana Lokhova has brought against Stefan Halper and various MSM outlets on your side, with the assistance of the lawyer Steven S. Biss, who has also been acting for Ed Butowsky and Devin Nunes, seems to to provide what may be relevant context.
    So, we now know that, following Lieutenant-General Flynn’s participation in a Moscow dinner to celebrate the tenth anniversary of RT in December 2015, Lokhova received what she found a surprising invitation from her Cambridge (UK) mentor and collaborator Professor Christopher Andrew, the following month, to a dinner with Stefan Halper.
    It may be pure coincidence that this – surprisingly undocumented – company, ‘Capital Alpha Security’ was incorporated one month later.
    But I think it would be appropriate if some of the questions that occur to me could be raised by properly briefed counsel, in courts of law.
    Also, I must enter a ‘mea culpa’. When I discovered that Tait’s company had never entered trading accounts, I concluded that this meant that the company could not have traded in the sense defined in the relevant legisation, and his income could not have passed through it.
    Since then I have learnt, partly through looking at companies in the Hakluyt/Holdingham group, which seems central to ‘Russiagate’, that today it is easy for companies simply to ignore reporting requirements.
    So, we do not know anything about what Tait’s sources of finance were at the time of his direct involvement in the conspiracy. What does appear clearly to be the case, however, is that his co-conspirators found him a comfortable job. (Crime pays!)
    On his ‘Lawfare’ page, there is a link to Tait’s ‘Twitter’ account – named Pwn All The Things‏ – on which he first produced the ‘revelations’ relating to Dzerzinsky, and other matters.
    His ‘tweets’ on recent developments sound increasingly hysterical. From an extended series on the transcript of the interview with Zelensky.
    ‘Immediately after Zelenskyy makes his ask, Trump asks for his favor, which is a deranged rant about Crowdstrike, Mueller, and Ukraine maybe having “the server”.’
    The scent of fear is, I think, palpable, just as it is in what the ‘whistleblower’ has written, and the craven acceptance of this by leading figures in the ‘Intelligence Community.’
    But Tait’s comments also implicitly raise what seems to me the $60,000 question which I cannot see anyone asking.
    What did become of the server, or servers?

  77. J says:

    One of the things that is at the heart of this impeachment drive, is to put Hillary Clinton in power.
    Examining Hillary’s past:
    Remember the brew ha with Nixon impeachment, Hillary Rodam (before Bill) was a fledgling legal eagle with the Watergate Committee. She was eventually fired for her conduct. Jerry Ziefman General Counsel to the Watergate Committee her boss that fired her, said Hillary was unethical, and conspired to violate the Constitution. Ziefman said Hillary was an unethical dishonest lawyer who conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of Confidentiality.
    Hillary worshiped Saul Alinsky who was an unabashed Luciferian in Alinsky’s own words. Hillary Rodam extolled the radical idoligy of Marxist Communist Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s manifesto advocated the overthrow by revolutionary force of the United States.

  78. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Here are some slightly earlier (from March 2019) John Solomon links that should have been included:
    2019-03-26 “US Embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros group during 2016 election” ‘Lutsenko told me he was stunned when the ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” ‘
    2019-03-20 “As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges” (this references a Hill.TV interview linked to below)
    2019-03-20 “Top Ukrainian justice official [Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko] says [U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch] gave him a do not prosecute list” (video with text)
    Also, here are links to a number of sundance columns dealing with the “whistle-blower” complaint and those sundance believes are behind it, namely the LawFare group and Adam Schiff (sundance sometimes refers to the complaint as the “Schiff dossier”):
    ***** 2019-09-28 “Former CIA Analyst Fred Fleitz: Whistleblower Had Help From Schiff Staff…” Using textual analysis, Fleitz says: “This one looks like it was written by a law professor, or a law firm”, and also relates it to Adam Schiff
    2019-09-27 “ICIG Whistleblower Form Recently Modified to Permit Complaint “Heard From Others”…” (note this supports the observations of Barbara Ann above)
    2019-09-27 “Phase #2 – With Newly Authorized: “Heard From Others”, Lawfare Group Circles Back To Trump-Kislyak Meeting…”
    2019-03-27 Whistle-blower Complaint is The Schiff Dossier – Devin Nunes Discusses the Creation of The “Schiff Dossier”…”
    2019-03-27 “DOJ Clarifies Their Position on Declassification – “Delegated Authority”…” (this is actually on a related topic that has been of interest)
    And here is some Kievian music:

  79. Barbara Ann says:

    For the record, this comment on Sundance’s piece on the affair sums up the timeline well. The form edit seems to have been a panicked response to Trump’s release of the transcript. No author in the metadata is a giveaway.
    Crystal clear now this is an orchestrated attempt to continue the soft coup where Russiagate left off. Taking a step back I am in awe of Trump’s ability to resist the six ways from Sunday onslaught.

  80. Jack says:

    Petri Krohn provides a plausible explanation for Trump’s request to Zelensky to look into Crowdstrike and the servers and more importantly why Crowdstrike would have been brought in to frame the Russians to potentially obfuscate the Seth Rich leak, if that’s what happened. It would seem to me that the DNC would not have the sophistication to conceive this so it would appear that intelligence folks must have been involved to know that this type of scheme was feasible.
    I’ve always been puzzled what about Trump’s candidacy kicked the hornets nest? On reflecting on the many posts you’ve written and the links you have thankfully provided, one scenario that comes to mind is that initially it began as a garden variety corruption of the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus to obtain oppo research on Trump, which then lead to multifaceted activities to cover that up including efforts to derail his campaign. These are not very bright people, however, their hubris and sense of power and entitlement were overwhelming. The fact that it was a trans-atlantic effort goes to show the depth of corruption that spans the globe.
    What I find interesting is why the Deep State have not found an accommodation with Trump. After all he’s hired them to staff the key national security positions and at least so far he’s not exposed their “racketeering”. Clearly they’re ratcheting up their efforts now with their latest go at creating the casus belli for impeachment. In light of this I am puzzled at Trump’s tactics or lack thereof in thwarting the determined efforts of his opponents to oust him. I wonder why he has not taken advantage of the immense powers of his office to unmask the coup plotters? He must know by now that they’re all in and will attempt their darndest to take him out.

  81. frances says:

    “His argument is that there probably were real hacks, but that ‘Fancy Bear’ and ‘Cosy Bear’, rather than from Russia, are likely to have been from Ukraine. ”
    I recall reading that CrowdStrike said there were such hacks but never provided any documentation other than its word. Further they were the ones examining the DNC server and were in possession of it, they could have placed the signatures in the server after the fact.

  82. Factotum says:

    If one puts “Seth Rich-Crowdstrike-Ukraine” into a search engine, one is immediately confronted by multiple articles, all claiming ...insane right wing conspiracy theories..

  83. TTG – apologies for butting in but this is still something that has not been put past doubt –
    ” I’m still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base.”
    The precise aims of the tragic Ukrainian venture are still unclear. They can be deduced but not evidenced. That is as far as I know also the case with Sevastopol.
    The only written evidence I’ve seen in that case is the US Navy project to upgrade a school, which I doubt is one of the reasons for your view.
    There was no evidence in the tender documents of adaptation of the school for military purposes and similar renovations contracts had been put out to tender elsewhere. It’s also scarcely likely that had the school been intended for military purposes the US Navy would have advertised the fact in 2013.
    Nevertheless it’s clear that had the venture in the Ukraine worked the Russians would sooner or later have been deprived of the use of their Sevastopol base. It may be safely assumed therefore that that was one object of the venture. Do you believe that as well as that there was a plan to replace it with a US Navy base? It would surely have been a most vulnerable one.

  84. Factotum says:

    CK – does the term holding business activities in “blind trust” have any meaning to you?

  85. Factotum says:

    Jack, consider this. SEIU bought us Barack Obama. SEIU along with other huge government employee unions like the teachers unions tried to buy us Hilary Clinton.
    Follow the money. Trump had an inkling the swamp in fact were the large government employee unions, whose members working in the vast government administrative agencies were a power unto only themselves. Obama understood this. Clinton understood this.
    The morning after shock in Nov 2016, these large government unions would not have another friend in the White House is still sending shock waves through our country. From local “Indivisible” groups to each Democrat candidate now pandering for that all important big union endorsement.
    A salient point supporting US Constituional governance in our over 250 year history has been the peaceful transition of power once the Electoral College has met. That is no longer a characteristic of American exceptionalism – we have transcended into banana republic status after the 2016 election – whose ox got gored the most – the unelected fourth branch of government – the large government administrative agencies and their union bosses.
    Recent SCOTUS case undoing mandatory union membership for government employees was an existential cri de guerre for these huge, well funded unions who no longer can rely on automatic streams of income from mandatory closed shop union dues.
    Call this the Unified Theory of Democrat Politics – the one explanation where all the loose ends fit together – everything Democrats do is in support of the big government unions mutual assistance compact.

  86. Jim Ticehurst says:

    So…The “leaker” is put in place Inside the White House.. to be A Snoop Dog.Eyes. and Ears..Spy..Who came out of Brennens CIA..and that’s Why General Flynn had to be Taken down Fast..As National Security Advisor..and New People Moved into Continue More Aggressive Operation against President Trump…As a Result…The NSC apparently could not Function Properly..A Clear Strategic Move..Enabled by Bob Muller.. The Records Speak for Themselves..None of Them Support a Right Wing Conspiracy Just a Coup attempt by The Neo Cons…to Overthrow the Government…

  87. Jack says:

    “…SEIU bought us Barack Obama.”
    I disagree. The John Podesta emails disclosed by Wikileaks show that Obama was a “creation” of Wall St and Chicago big money like the Pritzkers. Note that Podesta was the head of Obama’s transition team in his first administration. The emails reveal the communications between Podesta and top Wall St executives with lists of suggested appointees to the various positions in the Obama administration. The final nominee list match verbatim those suggested by Wall St. Geithner, Holder, etc were all positioned to insure the massive bailout of Wall St speculative losses and no prosecution for the fraud. As Holder noted he didn’t want to risk a financial meltdown.
    The Pritzkers bankrolled Obama’s run for the Illinois legislature and then his run for the US Senate. Ever since Bill Clinton the Democrats pay lip service to the unions during the campaign and collect their campaign contributions and ground support but they’ve always played to big financial interests. You can see it in the wealth generation after the presidency for Bill, Hillary and Obama. What is the first thing the Obamas did after they left the White House? Get on Richard Branson’s jet to fly to his private Caribbean island.

  88. akaPatience says:

    Thank you for all of this very interesting insight. I’ve only become aware of Lawfare during the past year, maybe even less than that. Yet it’s a group that deserves MUCH MORE exposure and scrutiny, since its role in the “Resistance” efforts to thwart Trump before and after his election are significant.
    Taking up Col. Lang’s suggestion that the “Clinton apparat” is mainly behind the “Resistance” (it’s hard to forget the pathetic image of Hillary sporting tacked-on purple lapels and Bill wearing a purple necktie when she finally deigned to concede her 2016 loss publicly, purple apparently meant to be emblematic of their new campaign), I wonder if the Lawfare group has many links to the Clinton machine?

  89. akaPatience says:

    Larry wrote:
    The Whistleblower lied. Not a single mention was made of “locating and turning over DNC servers.” This is a complete fabrication by the so-called Whistleblower.
    Many Democrats have been apoplectic about the POTUS daring to even broach the subject of the DNC server/servers. But what if Trump HAD asked Ukraine if they possessed them and if so, ask that they be turned over? Why would such requests be criminal?

  90. Fred says:

    The Pritzer/Chicago machine had a lot more to do with Barack’s election than SEIU leadership. The mandatory dues issues started being undone by Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Theses union members are calling the tune or running the “deep state”.

  91. English Outsider, I don’t think the Sevastopol school renovation was part of a desire to remove the Russian fleet from the port or eventually replace than with NATO vessels. It was just one of many little civil projects we sponsored as part of our overall Ukraine project. But I assume the goal of Russia out and NATO in at Sevastopol was a major goal of our Ukrainian venture. I think the Russians sensed this as well and this was a driving force in their decision to seize the Crimea when they did.

  92. Factotum says:

    As I recall, the Pritzkers first introduced Obama to George Soros when he was still a nobody but was willing to take on Clinton in 2008, Soros’s early endorsement of Obama is who opened up his money bags and bought out the Democrat super-delegates who sniffed his cold hard cash. Donna Brazille being one of the early Clinton sell-outs for Obama/Soros cash.
    Pritzkers were there at the beginning yes, but it was the unions like SEIU et al who provided the member cash war chests, the vast organizing network, the ground troops along with the ACORN crowd.
    SEIU President Andy what’s his name had more early WH visits than any other person in Obama’s early days. Though Obama never could deliver card check which SEIU desperately wanted, but Obama certainly stacked the NLRB all in the unions favor. And when talking “unions today” it almost exclusively means the big government employee unions. .
    The big government unions became the powers behind the throne of this boy president. They bought Obama every which way against Sunday.
    Others politely warned against the “unelected fourth branch of government” that was slowly but surely taking over our political and governance processes – when in fact that referred to only one thing – the big government unions and their bosses, who held power over the large, unelected federal administrative agencies.
    AKA – the deep state.

  93. Factotum says:

    Obama can’t multi-task? Obama would take money from anyone, because he knew he was Teflon – rode in on the unions and made friends with the money. Who I suspect have little use for his company now which explains running off to his private retreat away from all those who no longer return his phone calls among the monied and celebrity set.
    Who was ironically behind OWS – the teachers unions. Who created this new vocabulary to take down the big financial interests – the unions. Which language are the Democrats now using – the OWS language of class warfare, the 1%, the income disparity, the banksters, Goldman Sachs etc, etc, etc … more on that later, but that whole movement was merely union smokescreen to divert attention away from the fact the only people doing better than John Q public after the 2008 meltdown were the public employee unions.
    Which unions were growing, when some unions were falling rapidly into pension default – the big public employee unions. The big public unions needed a scape goat because studies were proving only the public sector was making out like bandits after the 2008 crash, while others were in a steep decline.
    Their was a growing disparity between what government employees were earning and what similarly educated or skilled workers were making in the private sector.
    So the unions quickly had to demonize someone else just to take the spot light off themselves – hence this very weird out of no where OWS movement that never made any sense but sure got the focus off the now greedy government unions who were working in stealth with Obama inside the WH.
    I think it was a clash of giants all fighting for the same thing – out West we are not under the sway of Wall Street or NYC money games as much as the east coast – out West it is pure government unions who have total power and control and who delivered Clinton’s 3 million vote popular vote margin in California.
    Silcon Valley is the one exception of the West Coast monied interests, who have a very, very curious relationship with the unions – don’t dare unionize our workers while we lavish cash on everyone of your uber-liberal causes …eleswhere. But not here.
    One who ignores the big public unions political ground game and their highly disciplined GOTV stunts is at their own peril, if one wants a Trump victory in 2020. All these protest rallies are nothing more than union astro-turf ginning up their organizational efforts.
    We just locally had another “climate change march” last Friday, but all the speakers kept talking about voting in 2020, registering to vote, anti-Trump and hardly a sane word about the “climate”, other than some junk science cliches.
    it was all about Democrat ground game political organizing, under the fig leaf of climate change.

  94. Barbara Ann says:

    Eric, I agree. It is obvious now to anyone interested that this rolling coup attempt will go on until they succeed in taking down Trump, or until the plotters are defeated. The veneer of Constitutional propriety with the impeachment process this time is already peeled back. These people have zero respect for the Constitution. Lawfare is an apt name, we are seeing the weaponization of the law by the Deep State to subvert the democratic process. Jon Voight is right, it is war.
    If they do succeed, especially if HRC has also announced her candidacy, I see the likelihood of another civil war as very high. A second Republic would eventually rise from the ashes. Trump is most unusual as a candidate for martyrdom, but it now looks like he has like a simple binary choice; that or victory.

  95. Thanks, TTG. Decidedly an off-topic enquiry of mine in this complex and fascinating thread, I’m afraid. But what happened in 13/14/15 is a subject that for me remains central.
    You mentioned earlier the Nuland tape – perhaps the moment when it truly became impossible for anyone to pretend that the Neocon narrative on the Ukraine was valid. But it didn’t seem to make a lot of odds in the long run. It’s a sobering thought that that narrative still holds for most.

  96. CK says:

    Why is it relevant to this discussion?

  97. Factotum says:

    The Crowdstrike- Adama Schiff – Ukraine – Whistleblower deep state coup continues to unravel:
    Parse every recent media piece about Ukraine-gate and count how many either refuse to even mention the favor Trump asked was to investigate Crowdstrike, or debunk any Trump mention Crowdstrike as a ” right wing conspiracy” theory.
    Which confirms as proposed, this in fact is about Crowdstrike. And the walls now closing in on the Crowdsrike deep state DNC hoax.

  98. Keith Harbaugh says:

    In a 15 minute interview with George Stephanopoulos,
    Rudy makes an impassioned effort to give visibility to some of the affidavits he has been given, notably one from Shokin, dated 2019-09-04, in which Shokin swears (emphasis added)

    8. I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings
    9. On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation.

    In my conversations with Poroshenko at the time, he was emphatic that
    I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma.
    When I did not, he said that the US (via Biden) was refusing to release the US $1 billion promised to Ukraine.
    He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.

    The above is being totally ignored by the media, whose standard line regarding this matter is, for example

    As vice president, Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who Biden and other Western officials said was not sufficiently pursuing corruption cases. At the time,
    the investigation into Burisma was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.

    One wonders how they can get away with ignoring that Sorkin statement.
    I note that TTG claims, in his remarks above, that Sorkin was corrupt.
    Does he have proof of that? If so, what? Media reports?????
    Note that if Sorkin is lying in the affidavit, he is liable for prosecution for that.
    And God damn the Democrats
    (is that too strong for this blog? If so delete it, or change “God damn” to “curse” which should be acceptable, I hope.)
    for doing everything they can to keep these matters from being investigated.
    What total rotters they are, trying to prevent any investigation which might harm their interests.
    Talk about obstruction of justice!
    And note how the media refers to such publicly useful, prophylactic, investigations as “digging for dirt”.

  99. J says:

    Joe Biden’s son was kicked out of the Navy Reserve for testing positive for Cocaine.

  100. Factotum says:

    Prior to the public release of the Whistleblower report, but shortly after receiving the complaint, Adam Schiff sent a staffer to Ukraine.
    From RedState: …..”That trip was paid for by the Atlantic Council.
    One of the senior fellows of the Council is CrowdStrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch. You may recall Crowdstrike is the company that supposedly concluded the Russians were behind the hack of the DNC in 2016 during the campaign. The FBI never had access to the server. Trump asked about Crowdstrike on the call with the Ukrainian president.
    According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, “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.”
    Two prominent names are among the folks who fund the Atlantic Council. One is George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. And the other? Burisma, the company which appointed Hunter Biden to its board and who the subject of the investigation that was allegedly stopped when Biden pressured Ukraine, according to the prosecutor who was fired. ………. (RedState)

  101. Factotum says:

    Biden and Son is testing positive for collusion with Ukraine and Crowdstrike right now.

  102. Fred says:

    If it is a trip on official government business it should not be paid for by an NGO. The important question is not who is on the Atlantic Council but where are the servers.

  103. Factotum and all,
    There is an interesting piece in the Unz Review by Israel Shamir.
    He suggests that the reference to the server refers not to one used by the DNC, but rather to one which Alperovitch and his Ukrainian co-conspirators used in their ‘false flag’ hack. And he also identifies the oligarch to whom Trump is referring is Victor Pinchuk.
    While claims made by Shamir should certainly not be taken as gospel, he is often well worth listening to.
    His general picture of how large elements in the Ukrainian elite put a lot of eggs in the Clinton basket seems to me persuasive. What could naturally be expected is that some of the opponents of these people will be feeding information to people on Trump’s side of the fence.
    II is far too early to be categorical, but the possibility should not be discounted that behind Trump’s apparently eccentric remarks may be much more information about what Alperovitch et al — including Matt Tait — were up to than it is judged prudent to reveal at this time.
    Irrespective of whether or not Trump was referring to a Ukrainian server, an absolutely critical question remains what became of the server or servers which are supposed to have been hacked — and also, to the final versions of Alperovitch’s reports.
    If these still exist, there must be a way in which competent people can perform the kind of objective analysis that Alperovitch was patently not qualified to do.
    If on the other hand this crucial evidence has been destroyed, then an understanding of the circumstances in which it was done might contribute materially to unraveling the coup plot.

  104. Keith Harbaugh says:

    The important question is not who is on the Atlantic Council but where are the servers.

    Fred, let me mention a lesson I learned when I was a junior officer working for the DCSR&D (Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development) of the USASA.
    Sometimes we would have to visit the “Department of Resource Management” to get approval for some change we wanted to make WRT the various contracts for which we had responsibility.
    That dept. was, I think, analogous to a “Comptroller” in a corporation.
    It tried to assure that the budgetary priorities of the DCSR&D, as approved by the CG, were obeyed.
    Anyhow, to impress all us junior officers, there was a large plaque up on the wall, labeled The Golden Rule.
    Under that was The Golden Rule, for that office:
    “He who has the gold makes the rules.”
    Get it, Fred?
    I want to emphasize how important money flows are in determining policy, and the policies advocated by the “think-tanks” such as the Atlantic Council.
    As to the AC funding a trip by congressional staffer, I agree that seems against the ethical rules.

  105. turcopolier says:

    Keith Harbaugh
    You are concerned about climat warming. Write something and post it under the last open thread.

  106. Fred says:

    I’m in agreement with the need to follow the flow of money. The revolving door of people into think tanks or academia, coincides with the flow of people into and out of various administrations, like we’ve seen in the past. In this case the ideological flow has been disrupted by Trump’s election. All the left and a significant portion of the right are in a panic due to far more than the money the Atlantic Council pays some careerist and not even who puts what amount of money into the Atlantic Council. Billions of dollars in military aid money, investment money due to regulatory changes (or their erasure), and direct and indict aid from not only the US but the IMF, the World Bank and the UN are at stake with Trump remaining in office and getting re-elected.
    The servers, well they would provide actual evidence of who did precisely what to whom and who actually within our government and outside of it were involved. See David’s comments.
    BTW there is far more than just money involved. The social disruption of these characters is global in scale. Just look at the mass migrations of peoples across the planet. They are being caused by far more than avarice by those who are already rich.

  107. Barbara Ann says:

    Tantalizing. Thanks for the link to Shamir’s Unz piece. The transcript makes a lot more sense if Trump is talking about a server Crowdstrike may have used in Ukraine to hack the DNC – to leave those ‘Russian’ fingerprints.

  108. Factotum says:

    I thought there was internal downloading on the DNC computers; not outside hacks – Russian or Ukrainian or whatever.

  109. Eureka Springs says:

    This article makes a case that five freshman Dems with a background in national security played a significant role. I don’t know, but seems unlikely they are Marxists.
    (CNN)When a group of moderate House freshmen Democrats moved from hard no to hell yes on starting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, they changed the dynamic for House Democrats, and indeed — the course of history.
    The reason they made their announcement and explained their reasoning as a group, in an op-ed in The Washington Post, is because they had already formed a bond over their national security background — especially the five women: Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, both ex-CIA officers; Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania who was in the Air Force; Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia were Naval officers.
    They met on the 2018 campaign trail as first time candidates who kept bumping into each other at events with mutual donors and supporters.

  110. Fred says:

    Last night one of the Detroit stations had video of the “Town Hall” Slotkin put on earlier at a gun range. Brilliant provocation by the “common sense” gun control congresswoman. She or her staff booked the event by naming themselves as a “pro-life” group – nothing duplicitous about that, we all expect members of congress to blatantly lie to us -she then proceeded to provoke people present by telling everyone the NRA has to go. Result: film at 10, and 11 and 24hrs a day online. Then of course there was the inevitable “I feel concerned for my safety” comment from the brave veteran.
    Can you shout “Reg Flag!Red Flag!” Dear MI police, please come and take the guns away from all these people at the gun club. Why look at this video of events, look at that man with the gun. I felt fear. I’m sure a member of congress is a credible person to make a red flag law complaint.
    Boy are those Republicans in studid. Common sense disarmament, courtesy of brave women with a background in national security playing a role. Needless to say she didn’t do this in downtown Detroit or address gang on civilian violence or common sense criminal control. That would violate the narrative.

Comments are closed.