#ukraine

Seems whistleblower may have worked with Biden when he was VP

W123

There are so many twists and turns in the Trump impeachment saga. So many allegations. Who to believe? What to believe? Adam Schiff, who managed to score 4 Pinocchio’s from the heavily left-leaning Washington Post, is now a key witness in a trial he is slated to chair. Did Joe Biden receive $900,000 as a Ukrainian MP outlined? Is his word to be believed?

Despite confirmation from the Inspector General that the CIA whistleblower #1 was involved with the candidacy of a 2020 Democratic nominee it turns out he is working for Joe Biden’s campaign. A retired CIA officer has told the Washington Examiner the following,

From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.

As Zero Hedge noted,

So, to clarify, a registered Democrat on the CIA payroll, who previously worked with VP Joe Biden, went to Adam Schiff’s committee, who referred him to a Democratic operative attorney, who helped him file a whistleblower complaint about Trump attempting to uncover Biden’s corruption, on a form which was altered to allow second-hand information.

CM is sure there is even less to see.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Image result for nothing to see here

Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach revealed yesterday that former VP Joe Biden received $900,000 from Burisma Group (the one his son Hunter worked for) for lobbying activities.

Derkach publicized documents which explained the channel of getting those funds. He said,

This was the transfer of Burisma Group’s funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services…According to the documents, Burisma paid no less than $16.5 million to [former Polish President, who became an independent director at Burisma Holdings in 2014] Aleksander Kwasniewski, [chairman of the Burisma board of independent directors] Alan Apter, [Burisma independent director] Devon Archer and Hunter Biden [who joined the Burisma board of directors in 2014]“…

Using political and economic levellers of influencing Ukrainian authorities and manipulating the issue of providing financial aid to Ukraine, Joe Biden actively assisted closing criminal cases into the activity of former Ukrainian Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, who is the founder and owner of Burisma Group…Biden’s fifth visit to Kyiv on December 7-8, 2015 was devoted to making a decision on the resignation of [then Ukrainian Prosecutor General] Viktor Shokin over the case of Zlochevsky and Burisma. Loan guarantees worth $1 billion that the United States was to give to Ukraine was the point of pressure. Biden himself admitted exerting pressure in his speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in January 2018, calling Shokin ‘son of a bitch who was fired.”

Derkach added that international corruption of this magnitude couldn’t have taken place without the participation of then Ukranian President Petro Poroshenko.

International corruption of this magnitude, as well as interference in the U.S. presidential election, could not have occurred without Poroshenko’s participation

…We see the conflict in which the new government of Ukraine faces due to the activities of the previous president. I want to emphasize that I’m almost sure, and not only I, but many journalists, that Poroshenko personally bears responsibility for the situation in which Ukraine has ended up, for dragging Ukraine into interfering in the U.S. presidential election, for a huge number of corruption scandals and international corruption that could not have occurred without his control or participation.

Of course, all this must be proven in a court of law, but isn’t it ironic that Biden is demanding Trump is impeached when it would seem the VP (undoubtedly in the full knowledge of the President) might have been complicit in quid pro quos with Ukraine himself.

Do we believe Joe Biden? Biden claimed he had never spoken to Burisma until a picture came out showing him playing golf with Devon Archer and his son, Hunter Biden, both directors of Burisma. Archer and Hunter were managing partners at Rosemont Seneca Partners. Archer was also a co-founder of the private-equity firm Rosemont Capital with Christopher Heinz, his college roommate at Yale. Archer had served as a senior adviser to Heinz’s stepfather, Democratic Senator John Kerry Kerry, during his 2004 presidential bid. Surely Joe never heard a peep about Burisma? Almost as believable as Bill Clinton’s chance meeting with AG Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix Airport runway, a day before her testimony on Hillary’s emails. Nothing to see here.

It smells like Kavanaugh 2.0

Can the Democrats really be so careless? It turns out that the CIA whistleblowera self-disclosed Democrat, who came forward over the Ukrainian affair has professional links to one of the 2020 Democratic nominee’s campaign.

The Inspector General (IG) Michael Atkinson stated this was the case, according to Washington Examiner journalist, Byron York.

Is this why House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff won’t release the transcript of former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker’s 10-hr testimony, which would possibly disprove allegations of a quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukraine’s government?

It is embarrassing enough that Schiff risks being a witness to an impeachment hearing he is chairing.

Kavanaugh 2.0? Do texts tell anything?

CM will say this from the outset. If Trump is actually guilty of a crime that validates formal impeachment, then the law of the land must prevail, regardless of partisan bias.

Unfortunately, this impeachment process smacks of Kavanaugh 2.0. Don’t be surprised if more allegations come out of the woodwork. After Kavanaugh’s eventual confirmation, recall that many who came forward in the hearings suffered bouts of amnesia or flat out reversed the initial allegations made. The Democrats remain so deranged, that if not careful, this could create an ill wind that will blow back on them if not successful.

Luckily for the Democrats, having a compliant mainstream media which can think of nothing better than aiding and abetting an impeachment are salivating so as to recover self-inflicted slumping ratings. So much for objective journalism. How cute that they pass so little airtime over allegations that US politicians could have family members embroiled in corrupt activities while they were in office. Don’t Americans see that as worth knowing? Isn’t it odd that Hunter Biden, a man with no experience in a particular field, was given a $600k job to act as a director, 10x the average CEO salary in the country?

How they missed the allegation that the first whistleblower, failed to disclose his meeting with House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff to the Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Atkinson didn’t follow up because he had no knowledge until it came out. Never mind that according to 18 U.S. Code § 1001, anyone who “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” might be guilty of making a false statement. A felony?

Now that whistleblower #1’s credibility is looking even shakier (given his testimony was based on second-hand information), how surprising that whistleblower #2 has come out of the woodpile with supposedly first-hand information. He claims to have evidence supporting the first. What a surprise?

Will he/she also be found to be a registered Democrat? Will he have the same impartiality of FBI agent Peter “at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took” Strzok when the lead investigator of Hillary Clinton’s email saga and Trump’s alleged Russia collusion?

Now the media wolf pack is seizing on comments that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made supposedly about quid pro quo. He said,  “This is what we do. Nations work together and they say ‘Boy...if you can help me with X, we’ll help you achieve Y. This is what partnerships do. It’s win-win, it’s better for each of us.” If one looked at nearly every administration, countries look for mutual benefits. What is remotely odd about that? Does America give aid to countries that benefit it? Israel perhaps? If you help keep peace in the region, we’ll sell you state of the art equipment? Saudi Arabia? If you buy our fighter jets, we’ll buy your oil?

Zelenskiy said there was no quid pro quo. Australian PM Scott Morrison spoke of exactly the type of cooperation Australia and the US has had for decades. It isn’t a quid pro quo. It is mutual benefit. Sharing common values.

Officials taking part in the texts are Kurt Volker, former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine; William Taylor, who was interim chargé d’affaires in Kiev is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine; Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union; and Andrey Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskiy.

In an exchange dated Sept. 9, in a text Taylor sent to Sondland, the career diplomat wrote: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Sondland responds: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.

In a July 25 message between Volker and Yermak — the aide to Ukraine’s president Zelenskiy — which occurred just ahead of the Trump-Zelenskiy call, Volker wrote:

Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/’get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.

Weeks later, on Aug. 9, Sondland and Volker exchange texts as they try to establish a date for Zelenskiy’s visit:

Sondland: “Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms.”

Volker: “Excellent!! How did you sway him? 🙂

Sondland: “Not sure I did. I think POTUS really wants the deliverable

So the texts go to show there was no quid pro quo which involved “monies being withheld”, which is the real point of attack by Schiff et al.

Does Trump wanting to get to the bottom of the very collusion during the 2016 election that the Democrats had been screaming about for the better part of two years all of a sudden require impeachment because that it doesn’t suit their purposes? Do they want a president to wield a big stick or be a wallflower? 

Washington Post gave 4 out of 5 Pinocchio’s to Adam Schiff. How hard must have that been? Pelosi removed Jerry Nadler from the investigation. Surely she must think to remove him given the incompetence he has shown? Now Schiff has made himself part of the investigation. He is now a witness. A bit hard to chair an impeachment enquiry when he himself is part of it.

What a farce.

In an impeachment mud wrestle, the safest bet is on Trump

Image result for mud wrestling stripes

The Democrats currently have 6 congressional committees investigating Trump. Six. They are looking like a complete laughing stock, once again trying to find a smoking gun where seemingly none exists. The mainstream media was as ever compliant, fuelling their blood lust set off by chronic Trump Derangement Syndrome. Releasing the unredacted phone transcript with Ukrainian PM Volodymyr Zelensky shows once again how Trump always ends up the favourite in a mud-wrestling contest. One would have thought the Democrats would get this by now. Yet they fall for it every time.

If one reads the transcript, it seems that Trump asked about having Zelensky look into the possible shenanigans surrounding the 2016 election and Joe Biden’s son’s alleged corruption with Ukrainian oligarchs in 2015. There are no quid pro quos made, something even the left-leaning NYT admits.

Pelosi seems to have buckled to her party to flip-flop on impeachment. Instead of waiting for the telephone conversation to be released, which Trump promised he’d do, she seems to have acted in haste. Unless she thinks retired Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire’s testimony opens a whole can of worms which could lead to their ultimate wish, as it seems they realise 2020 is sunk by conventional methods.

There is a touch of irony that it is only Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat presidential nominee who seems to favour the American people deciding rather than a bunch of politicians who haven’t got over the fact that Clinton’s coronation never came to be. Gabbard said,

“I believe that impeachment at this juncture would be terribly divisive for the country at a time when we are already extremely divided. The hyperpartisanship is one of the main things driving our country apart…I think it’s important to beat Donald Trump, that’s why I’m running for president…But I think it’s the American people who need to make their voices heard making that decision.

Impeachment still requires a 2/3rds vote in the Senate which is highly unlikely in the Republican-dominated upper house. That will require at least 20 Republicans to side with the Democrats to remove Trump. What the call for impeachment will do is likely finish off ol’ Joe Biden from the race. He is far too centrist for the left of the party in any event given it has been hijacked by the hard-left.

Ultimately Trump may relish the thought of a protracted impeachment battle that ends up showing no evidence yet exposing that Democrats as being more intent on pursuing vendettas than helping the very people they’re elected to serve.

One thing is for sure, Americans are growing tired of these antics and impeachment hearings will only make the chance of turfing Trump in 2020 that much harder, despite several Democrat-held states introducing legislation to bar Trump from the ballot paper should he refuse to release his taxes.

As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “never disturb your enemy when he is making a mistake.