The latest from the United States of Absurdity — Biden, Trump and Ukraine

27 September 2019

Deep State footprints?

Christina Zhao (at Newsweek) did a masterful job summarizing this latest anti-Trump story:

A whistleblower filed a formal nine-page complaint—released publicly on Thursday—that accused the White House of covering up a phone call made between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, during which the U.S. president asked his foreign counterpart to investigate his 2020 rival former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

Reports about the whistleblower's concerns . . . led to the complaint and a summary of the phone conservation between Trump and Zelensky being released, as well as a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump, announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday.

The partial transcript, released by the White House on Wednesday, proved that the U.S. president did ask Ukraine for assistance in investigating his political opponent and that he even offered his own Attorney General to help in the probe.

[T]he Times identified the whistleblower as a male CIA officer who had previously been detailed to the White House.

The report is based off the corroborated accounts of three unnamed sources and amounts to the most detailed description of the whistleblower to date. His name, however, remains unknown to the public.

The CIA, you say?

Caitlin Johnstone pointed to the obvious questions that the CIA connection raise:

A mysterious stranger from the lying, torturing, propagandizing, drug trafficking, assassinating, coup-staging, warmongering, psychopathic CIA was working in the White House, heroically provided the political/media class with politically powerful information out of the goodness of his heart, and then vanished off into the Langley sunset. Clearly there is nothing suspicious about this story at all.

[E]ven to call this spook a “whistleblower” is ridiculous on its face. You don’t get to call someone from the US intelligence community a whistleblower unless they are actually whistleblowing on the US intelligence community.

A CIA officer who exposes information about government officials is an operative performing an operation unless proven otherwise, because that’s what the CIA does; it liberally leaks information wherever it’s convenient for CIA agendas while withholding all other information behind a veil of government secrecy.

A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA’s permission is a whistleblower.

A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a spook doing spook things.

You can recognize the latter by the way the mass media supports, applauds and employs them.

You can recognize the former by the way they have been persecuted, imprisoned, and/or died under mysterious circumstances.

Recognize repetitive cultural dopiness

Russiagate, the failed (Deep State-associated, Democratic Party) attempt to smear President Trump as a Russian puppet, started pretty much the same way.

The tall tale then ran for about three years, obliterating attention that would have better served in directions that actually served the national interest. Such as acting upon the anti-Constitutional, totalitarian-inclined abuses that real whistleblowers — like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (in kindred spirit) — had exposed.

Instead — now that Russiagate has collapsed — the CIA trots out an apparently partially true story. But again in a presumed attempt to clip the President's wings.

Recall that President Trump publicly disrespects his own intelligence agencies. Kicking him in his presidential posterior would be an understandable response.

Meanwhile, Democrats again seem to be jumping upon this probably too rickety bandwagon.

The Ukraine-related case against the President is legally too complicated (if you read the actually pertinent statutes) to be fully persuasive, except as to smell. Complicated in politics tends not to be effective.

The Democratic Party lost credibility pursuing its last three years of lies. So why build another iffy case, in which their justifiably trashed credibility is only going to further motivate an already determined opposition?

Speaker Pelosi has even said that she wants to confine her Party's impeachment effort to the Ukraine matter's probably leaky boat. Given the volume of the President's real and imagined sins, that seems wimpishly too half-assed.

Though I can see Speaker Pelosi's logic — about keeping things simple — I am not persuaded that impeachment (narrow or wide) adequately substitutes for presenting appealing alternatives to Trumpism.

Then there is also the not so small political matter of whether Joe and Hunter Biden can be equally tarnished with their own, alleged Ukraine doings. See, for example, Joaquin Flores' perspective.

If Flores is in the ballpark, President Trump could probably inflict more damage (during the impeachment process) on Democrats, than they could on him.

Democrats are, after all, the people with the less committed base of voters. If one demonstrates the Democratic establishment to be the plutocratic scumbags that they are, a lot of Democratic "progressive" types are going to opt out of voting.

The moral? — the Establishment stays in control by diverting public attention with telenovela-equivalents

Paul Craig Roberts' pessimism regarding the American future is justified.

PeteFree.com

The latest from the United States of Absurdity — Biden, Trump and Ukraine