Skip to content

“[redacted] knows that simple and clear slogans, repeated relentlessly, can have an effect. The Democrats should just call this what it is. It’s bribery.”

2019-11-12

(photo courtesy of pixabay.com)

This statement was made in an article that came through the Apple online free news service as CNN Politics in a comprehensive article titled “The Case For and Against Impeaching President [redacted]” and was attributed to CNN contributor Paul Bergala, who was a senior Clinton advisor during Clinton’s impeachment twenty years ago.

Comment of the Day: There are four issues that bind R voters to…[redacted]: Abortion, anti-taxes, guns, and racism.

2019-11-07
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com)
BSargent
Berlin, NH

 I live in [redacted] country, rural northern New England. As an older white guy I know and am friendly with and do business with a fair number of folks who have [redacted] bumper stickers and [redacted] yard signs from three years ago. I get to listen to what people say when they think everyone’s a [redacted] supporter. There are four issues that bind R voters to their party and to [redacted]: Abortion, anti-taxes, guns, and racism. They also get vicarious pleasure from [redacted]’s intentional cruelty, as if this were just reality TV or a (phony) wrestling match. I’ve tried to carefully raise issues with my R friends and associates, some of whom would do anything to help any individual in need, regardless of party or skin color. They know he’s a liar and don’t care–they think all the Ds/liberals/leftists gnashing of teeth makes having [redacted] worth it. As long as he pokes his finger into our eyes, as long as he sticks it to Blacks and Latinos, as long as he appoints sexist judges, they will support him. They have no interest in listening to reason and the more we complain about [redacted], the more they embrace and defend him.

[redacted] re Ukraine government: “They are horrible, corrupt people. They tried to take me down.” (Why does he hate the Ukrainians? A few thoughts.)

2019-11-03

(photo courtesy of pixabay.com)

This quote comes courtesy of the Washington Post and an article about the irrational hatred of a certain president for the country of Ukraine.

The president* of the United States has believed in a conspiracy theory regarding the Ukrainian government since early in his administration and possibly even before his election.  Notes taken by FBI agents of interviews with Rick Gates, the deputy to Paul Manafort, show that key figures around the candidate* pushed the unsupported theory that the Ukraine government was responsible for the hacks of Democratic servers.  This included campaign advisors who became, at least briefly, national security advisors.

The interviews with Rick Gates also revealed that high level figures like the sons of the candidate speculated as to how they could obtain copies of the purloined emails.  Again, the man who briefly became national security advisor was tapped, “because of his Russian connections”, to try to obtain emails not yet released and information as to when they would be released.  There was apparently no definite evidence that advance knowledge was ever obtained except in the case of the Republican National Committee (RNC), which might have learned ahead of time when releases might occur.

These interview transcriptions were released on a judge’s order, as part of a gradual release of most or all of the Mueller investigation unpublished transcripts.  The releases are still heavily redacted to remove the names of current subjects of investigation and other key leads.  This was the first release, and it happened to contain most of the interviews with Rick Gates; releases will continue monthly for the next eight years, according to the judge’s order.

The degree and duration of [redacted]’s apparent visceral hatred of Ukraine and its government has never been made public before.  It is truly shocking, in an age of shocks, that this animus against Ukraine is so deep and so long-lasting, and what is worse, so resistant to change.  The result of this bias is the naked abuse of political power against the Ukrainians.

From his point of view, [redacted] has done nothing wrong by openly twisting the Ukrainian arm for his personal political gain.  The fallback position of the Republican majority in the Senate will be that it was wrong, but not so bad as to be impeachable.  Sort of like the fallback Democratic position in the Clinton impeachment: wrong, but not impeachable because it was personal, not government business.  Except that this fallback is saying that the use/abuse of political power by with-holding vital military aid to a front-line democratic country to demand the announcement of an investigation into his political rivals isn’t such a bad  thing.  Not so bad?  When Ukrainian soldiers have been killed because they don’t have enough Javelin anti-tank missiles to fend off Russian militia attacks, not so bad?  I beg to differ.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman: an active duty serviceman honorably a obeys lawful subpoena, to testify to his witness to the illegal acts of his commander-in-chief. Republicans try to smear him.

2019-10-29

(photo courtesy of pixabay.com)

Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, who was born in Ukraine and brought out of the Soviet Union by his family at age 3, is being slandered as too concerned with the welfare of Ukraine, among other things.  He has been described as a “Never-[redacted]” by [redacted] himself.  What could be worse, as he is “human scum” by that association?

John Yoo, already notorious for drafting a memo justifying torture, described Vindman as “treasonous” for supposedly being more concerned about the welfare of Ukraine than that of the US.  Although how the behavior of the president* intersects with the welfare of Ukraine is not clear, other than that $400 million in military aid was being with-held.  Surely the welfare of Ukraine and of the US are linked when the US gives Ukraine $400M in weapons to defend against the Russians and save a Western-style democracy  Are they implying that Vindman was so unhinged by the prospect of losing the aid for his country of birth that he decided to slander the president* as revenge?  Apparently.

Vindman may not be a wonderful guy or even a great conversationalist, but he is a veteran with multiple foreign deployments and a Purple Heart for wounds received in an IED explosion in Iraq.  He is still on active duty and was deployed to the National Security Council in the White House.  His family is Jewish, which is apparently why they emigrated from the Soviet Union– a number of Jews were allowed to emigrate from the USSR to get rid of them, due to pervasive occult anti-Semitism and the perception of all Jews as dissidents.

He is said to be resolutely apolitical and has stressed his “sacred” duty to the United States on multiple occasions.  He was “concerned” by the meeting he had with Gordon Sondland and others in which he heard that there was a quid pro quo, and reported his concerns to a ranking lawyer in his chain of command.  He reported a second time after he listened in at the Situation Room on the notorious July 25 phone call.  His complaints seem to have gone nowhere, although those of the still-anonymous whistle blower(s) have finally reached Congress.

This is what the Republicans are claiming is the “fruit of the poison tree” in the House impeachment inquiry.  By claiming that the inquiry is fatally flawed from the beginning (as if he hadn’t been read his rights or had evidence seized without a warrant) they can avoid discussing the actual evidence, which has been voluntarily made public by the president* himself.  They can pretend that the pending all-House vote on the impeachment inquiry doesn’t make it legitimate by claiming that somehow the “rights” of the victim-in-chief have been violated so he should be allowed to walk free for homicides committed in plain sight of multiple witnesses.

 

Anonymous Republican strategist: “If they say something in defense of the president or against the impeachment inquiry now, will they be pouring cement around their ankles?”

2019-10-28

(cartoon courtesy pixabay.com)

Starting with “no quid pro quo” and continuing to “yes, it’s a quid pro quo, but that’s OK” and going on to who knows what?  Republicans are fearful of the other shoe falling.  What else has he done that we don’t know about yet?

(“cement around the ankles” is courtesy of the Washington Post yesterday…)

 

Anonymous official on capturing Syrian oilfields for [redacted]: “This is like feeding a baby its medicine in yogurt or applesauce”

2019-10-28

(photo courtesy pixabay.com)

This comes from the Washington Post, in an article on Syria and the reinforcement of Syrian oilfields in the northeast of the country.  These fields happen to be small and of poor quality, but their very presence attracted him when he was offered the option of securing them with a few troops not withdrawn from the country.  Trouble is, the only way to secure the oilfields is with armored units, meaning more than a couple of hundred troops will be needed for this mission.  This is the military’s only option, under [redacted]’s short vision, to keep a few troops in Syria.  Bradleys would probably be under-armored to face a Russian forced armed with Javelin-like weapons, so it looks like main battle tanks are the only viable option.  Just kidding.  Bradleys will be used as a sacrificial pawn.

Dimitrios Vastakis (former senior cybersecurity director at OCISO): “I foresee the White House is posturing itself to be electronically compromised again.”

2019-10-28

(photo montage courtesy of pixabay.com)

This disturbing prediction comes from a senior cybersecurity director for the White House, in the office called OCISO (created in 2014 in response to the discovery that the Russians had penetrated or breached White House computers).  This article is in an online journal called Futurism that refers to an article in Axios.  That journal refers to an exclusive look at an internal memo on cybersecurity from which that quote is referenced in the first paragraph.  So if you read the Axios article, you’ll find that at least a dozen high-level officials in cybersecurity have resigned or been forced out of their positions and the entire OCISO has been subsumed into the “Office of the Chief Information Officer” which is just legalese for the publicity department.  The axe has fallen heavily, under the excuse of saving money by streamlining operations.  As a result, morale in cybersecurity is extremely low, it has been rendered much less effective at defending against Russian incursions, and the whole staff is subordinated to a politically appointed director whose priority is publicity, not national defense.

Need we say more about how the White House has been destroying government from inside ever since the Inauguration?