90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, November 18, 2019

Why the Pelosi-Schiff Impeachment Is Playing Out Unsuccessfully

Something is going very wrong for the Democrats in their impeachment drama. It was supposed to play out like the Nixon Watergate hearings. Each day would build drama, increase suspense, with new revelations culminating in such a nationwide impact that the President would not even have to be impeached after all. When Nixon read the tea leaves, he resigned.

The Republicans tried to replicate that effort with their impeachment of Bill Clinton, but that campaign never quite impacted the same way. Everyone knew by then about Paula Corbin Jones and the zipper, Kathleen Willey and the pawing, Monica Lewinsky and the cigar … and the dress … and the stain. Yet the Clinton affair was marked by the unexpected drama that came when an honest politician in Washington arose on the Senate floor, Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and spoke truth to power, giving voice to the shame of a nation. That was it, but it was something.

The Senate never was going to convict Clinton. Those in the House who instigated the impeachment all paid a steep price, and the Republicans lost their momentum. Yes, Clinton had lied under oath, and he even had to be disbarred in Arkansas — but, at the end of the day, the revelation that a married man had denied having an extramarital affair just did not measure up to, say, a standard that had been set previously when a sitting President appeared to have covered up a felony and paranoiacally had wiretapped his own White House to record his own private conversations with most everyone. Nixon had microphones installed in the Oval Office, the Cabinet Room, the Lincoln Sitting Room, his Executive Office Building office, and even in the Aspen Lodge at Camp David.

The Nixon Impeachment was supposed to happen again that same way this time with Nancy Pelosi reliving the historicity of her youth and with Adam Schiff taking down the high and mighty in the manner of Edward R. Murrow. But it has fizzled. There is no John Dean. There is no high crime or misdemeanor. Perhaps a moment we all remember from the Nixon hearings was when Presidential aide Alexander Butterfield was asked whether the President had recordings. Butterfield responded: “I’m sorry you asked. But, yes, there was a taping system that taped all...

1st Whistleblower & Army Official Vindman Might Be in Cahoots

The original whistleblower, who is said to be in hiding, might have spoken to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman before he filed his complaint. Vindman is also the man that National Security Council aide Tim Morrison said had questionable judgment. He confirmed that several others, including Fiona Hill, agreed with him about Vindman’s judgment. They left him out when they could.

The Washington Post suggests Ukraine whistleblower [probably Eric Ciaramella] who launched the Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry [trial], might have spoken with Vindman. He was still attending White House meetings recently.

Everyone was so ALARMED by Trump’s call, the Post assures us, and that’s why all this went down.

On Saturday, WaPo published details about the steps a CIA analyst took to blow the whistle on the president.

“The analyst had served on the National Security Council during the Trump administration and had been in the presence of the president. After returning to the CIA, his job required him to continue to participate in National Security Council meetings,” the publication reported, indicating that the whistleblower was still attending meetings at the White House recently.

WaPo claimed the whistleblower never told any of his White House contacts about his plans to file a complaint, which he worked on “after hours” in his cubicle at the CIA headquarters for two weeks before submitting it on Aug. 12.

Before filing the complaint, the anonymous person spoke with a White House official who was “shaken” over the call he described as “frightening,” “crazy,” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.”

These people are nuts.

WaPo says it’s not confirmed but the official could have been Vindman, who still works with the whistleblower on U.S.-Ukraine policy. “The analyst does not identify the official in his July 26 memo, which was obtained by congressional investigators in the impeachment inquiry. But Vindman, in his testimony, disclosed that he had spoken to officials outside the White House within days of the Trump-Zelensky call,” according to the report.

This fiasco, which hasn’t moved the polls from what we can tell, was originally about a possible quid pro quo crime. There are holes in that so Democrats moved on to extortion. This past week, Democrats said it’s a case of bribery.

It’s unclear what crime the President allegedly committed.

THE CRIME & THE EXECUTIONER

Rep. Schiff is the “impartial” judge, jury, and executioner in this mess. Schiff said he’s reserving judgment on whether he will recommend impeachment, but in this next clip, he brags about his ‘resistance’ credentials and then moves on to state the following:

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, received emails about Ukraine policy from a top director at George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

The emails informed Ciaramella and a handful of other Obama administration foreign policy officials about Soros’s whereabouts, the contents of Soros’s private meetings about Ukraine and a future meeting the billionaire activist was holding with the prime minister of Ukraine.

A primary recipient of the Open Society emails along with Ciaramella was then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who played a central role in the anti-Trump dossier affair. Nuland, with whom Ciaramella worked closely, received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to her direct role in facilitating the dossier within the Obama administration.

The emails spotlight Soros’s access to national security officials under the Obama administration on the matter of Ukraine.

In one instance, Jeff Goldstein, senior policy analyst for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, sent a June 9, 2016 email to Nuland and Ciaramella, who were the missive’s primary recipients.

CC’d were three other State Department officials involved in European affairs, including Alexander Kasanof who worked at the U.S. embassy in Kiev.

The message read:

I wanted to let you know that Mr. Soros met with Johannes Hahn in Brussels earlier today. One of the issues he raised was concern over the decision to delay the visa liberalization for Georgia and the implications for Ukraine.

The email revealed that “GS” – meaning Soros – “is also meeting [Georgian] President [Giorgi] Margvelashvili today and speaking with PM Groyman,” referring to Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

The email stated that Soros told Hahn “that Ukrainian civil society is concerned that without reciprocity from the EU for steps Ukraine has taken to put in place sensitive anti-corruption and anti-discrimination legislation and institutions it will not be possible to continue to use the leverage of EU instruments and policies to maintain pressure for reforms in the future.”

Soros also “urged Hahn to advocate with member states to move ahead with visa liberalization for Ukraine,” the email related.

“I’m sure you’ve been working this issue hard; if you have any thoughts on how this is likely to play out or where particular problems lie I’d appreciate if you could let us know,” the email concluded.

Goldstein’s email text sent to Nuland and Ciaramella was not addressed to any one individual.

Nuland replied that she would be happy to discuss the issues by phone. Goldstein set up a phone call and wrote that Soros specifically asked that an employee from the billionaire’s “personal office” join the...