If you could conduct a free and fair referendum in Crimea, most of its citizens would indicate that they are happier under Russia than they were under Ukraine. From Eva Bartlett at mintpressnews.com:
Eva Bartlett traveled to Crimea to see firsthand out how Crimeans have fared since 2014 when their country reunited with Russia, and what the referendum was really like.
SIMFEROPOL, CRIMEA — In early August I traveled to Russia for the first time, partly out of interest in seeing some of the vast country with a tourist’s eyes, partly to do some journalism in the region. It also transpired that while in Moscow I was able to interview Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry.
High on my travel list, however, was to visit Crimea and Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) — the former a part of Russia, the latter an autonomous republic in the east of Ukraine, neither accurately depicted in Western reporting. Or at least that was my sense looking at independent journalists’ reports and those in Russian media.
Both regions are native Russian-speaking areas; both opted out of Ukraine in 2014. In the case of Crimea, joining Russia (or actually rejoining, as most I spoke to in Crimea phrased it) was something people overwhelmingly supported. In the case of the Donbass region, the turmoil of Ukraine’s Maidan coup in 2014 set things in motion for the people in the region to declare independence and form the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.
If you can’t stop Trump’s reelection, impeach him! From David Catron at spectator.org:
Trump must be publicly drawn-and-quartered because he is the leader of the uprising.
It should by now be obvious to the meanest intelligence that the Democrats are determined to impeach President Trump with or without credible evidence that he has committed any act resembling “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The “whistleblower complaint” that Nancy Pelosi used as the pretext for launching her ersatz impeachment inquiry contains little but hearsay and fabrication, while her claim that it proves Trump has “violated the Constitution” fails the laugh test. In the end, however, impeachment is less about offenses committed by the president than the desire of the Washington establishment to put down what they see as a peasants’ revolt.
Impeachment is, in other words, an attempt to restore the old order that the voters overturned in 2016. It seeks to annul that election and return us to the nascent totalitarianism of the Obama era, an incipient autocracy the Democrats expected to be nurtured during the presidency of Hillary Clinton. Thus, when the hoi polloi got above themselves and put Donald Trump in the White House, his removal from office became the primary objective of Washington’s self-appointed Optimates. They began planning Trump’s impeachment before he was inaugurated because he is the leader of the insurrection, and they know full well that it can’t be put down until he is gone.
Set aside the controversy surrounding Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and instead look at the possibilities of improving US relations not just with Ukraine, but Russia. From Stephen F. Cohen at lewrockwell.com:
Is US national security being trumped by loathing for Trump?
The transcript of President Trump’s July 25 telephone conversation with Ukraine’s recently elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has ignited the usual anti-Trump bashing in American political-media circles, even more calls for impeachment, with little, if any, regard for the national security issues involved. Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to make the transcript public, which, if any, foreign leaders will now feel free to conduct personal telephone diplomacy with an American president directly or indirectly, of the kind that helped end the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, knowing that his or her comments might become known to domestic political opponents? Consider instead only the following undiscussed issues:
§ Even if former vice president Joseph Biden, who figured prominently in the Trump-Zelensky conversation, is not the Democratic nominee, Ukraine is now likely to be a contested, and poisonous, issue in the 2020 US presidential election. How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine’s torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion, as some of us who opposed that folly back in the 1990s warned would be the case, and not only in Ukraine. The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country’s constitutionally elected president Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass. All those fateful events infused the Trump-Zelensky talk, if only between the lines.
Are the Democrats guaranteeing Trump’s reelection? From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:
The Democrats are experiencing the giddy delight of having finally summoned up the stones to push the big red “IMPEACHMENT!” button. Their tawdry joy will pass. It’s a dumb idea, and they will soon regret it. This sorry scenario brings to mind Napoleon’s apocryphal advice to never interrupt your enemy when he, she or xe is making a mistake, and if the cheesy performance art piece that is this bogus scandal wasn’t so poisonous to our body politic, it would be hilarious.
Right now, the Dems are thrilled because they’re finally free of the tyranny of fairness and honesty and coherence, and they can indulge their deepest fantasies of frog-marching The Donald out of the Oval Office, to be replaced with Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit – wait, that’s not right. Why, that’s not right at all. They would replace Donald Trump with…Mike Pence, who will probably do the same things that have made Trump so successful without all the tweeting.
Joe Biden certainly didn’t act, as some mainstream media outlets have claimed, as if the Ukrainian prosecutor’s investigation of Burisma, the company that hired Hunter Biden, was dormant and of no consequence. From Moon of Alabama at moonofalabama.org:
There are some serious questions around the Biden family involvement in the Ukraine that the media have not picked up on.
The first regards the ownership of the company which hired Joe Biden’s son Hunter for an exorbitant amount of money while Joe Biden ran the U.S. Ukraine policy.
The second question is about the firing of the Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Trump accuses Joe Biden of having intervened in favor of his son’s sponsor to get Shokin fired. The timeline below supports that assertion.
Ann Coulter has a pretty good handle on Russiagate and now the Ukraine controversy. From Coulter at anncoulter.com:
This column will explain the impeachment farce in two minutes. By the end, you will thank the media for demanding the release of Trump’s phone calls with the leaders of Ukraine and Australia.
What the phone transcripts demonstrate is that — unlike the typical Republican — Trump is not a let-bygones-be-bygones sort. He intends to find out who turned the FBI into a Hillary super PAC, using the powers of the nation’s “premiere law enforcement agency” (according to them) to take out a presidential candidate, and then a president.
The whole picture becomes clear when you have the timeline.
Instead of the FBI just admitting that it launched the Russia probe to help elect Hillary, the agency has given us a scrolling series of excuses for this partisan attack.
Posted in Crime, Cronyism, Government, Intelligence, Investigations, Law, Media, Politics
Tagged Crowdstrike, FBI, Russiagate, Trump Dossier, Ukraine, Whistleblower
Why does it matter who President Trump asked Ukraine’s president to investigate? An American politician may have used his influence to have the former president of Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that had put that politician’s son on the board of directors and paid him $50,000 a month, although the son had no experience in the relevant industry or in Ukraine. That may be a crime—certainly no one would suggest that there isn’t at least the appearance that the company may have been trying to buy influence with the politician—and as the head of the executive branch, it is Trump’s responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed and possible crimes are investigated. If he had made the request to investigate just a “regular” American politician who wasn’t vice president at the time and a political rival of Trump, nobody would have batted an eye. Does Joe Biden and his son get free passes, and if so, why? From Peter Van Buren at theamericanconservative.com:
This isn’t about the law; it’s about circumventing another vote by the deplorables in 2020.
Disregard all the dramatic accusations in and around the whistleblower’s complaint; they’re just guff. This entire impeachment brouhaha hinges on Donald Trump’s own words in the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president. Is he demanding foreign interference in the 2020 election? Or is he asking an ally to run down unethical actions by a man who might become president (here’s a 2018 letterfrom the Dems asking Ukraine to help them investigate Trump to compare it to)? Or is it mostly just Trump running his mouth off in a rambling, often disconnected, stream-of-consciousness phone call that means very little?
If you read Trump’s words as impeachable, you are asking to impeach on something that was talked about but never happened. Ukraine never handed over dirt on Biden. Trump never even asked Attorney General Bob Barr to contact Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani may or may not have had meetings with someone but no one is claiming that anything of substance happened in them. There is no evidence military aid was withheld in return for anything. If nothing happened, then nothing happened. You need a body on the ground for a smoking gun to matter.