Summary: Will the Democrats bite the apple, impeaching Trump but destroying Biden – and revealing the secret money flows of America’s Empire?
“I would say, ‘Follow the money, Earl, because that’s where it’s going to be.’”
— Henry Peterson testifying at 1974 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Earl J. Silbert to be United States Attorney.
Will the Democrats bite the impeachment apple & destroy Biden?
RussiaGate showed us the Deep State in action, as it came into the light to attack Trump. UkraineGate might reveal even bigger secrets: the money flows that are America’s Empire in action. Client states like Ukraine pay America’s elites in many ways. Hunter Biden’s wages are an unusually blatant example. Now the Democrats must decide if they will destroy Joe Biden to get Trump, and show the public Washington’s deep corruption.
The End of Biden’s Candidacy
By William S. Lind.
Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delaying the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate? Because she and other Democrats know a Senate trial of President Trump could mean the end of the Democrats’ strongest presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s, quest for the White House.
If Republican Senators show a bit of courage and a modicum of brains, they will turn Trump’s trial into a trial of Joe Biden. Why? Because if President Trump’s request to the President of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens were based on a genuinely corrupt relationship between Joe Biden, his son, and a Ukrainian gas company, then President Trump was only doing his duty in making the request. It isn’t simply a matter of corruption in Ukraine; it would mean corruption in the Obama White House. And corruption in the White House, in a recent presidential administration, is something the American people should know about, especially when the person at the head of the corruption ladder is now a candidate for president.
Was Vice-President Biden engaged in corruption? The evidence is circumstantial but significant. His son was made a member of the board of directors of a Ukrainian natural gas company at extraordinary rates of compensation, $50,000 a month or more, which is far higher than normal remuneration for a board membership. He was given the position despite having no background in or, presumably, knowledge of the oil and gas industry. Why would the company do that? There is only one possible answer: because they thought it would buy them access to the Obama administration, at a very high level.
Did it? What we know is that when the chief prosecutor of Ukraine showed indications he might investigate the gas company for corruption, Vice-President Biden demanded the President of Ukraine fire the prosecutor. More, he threatened to withhold U.S. aid for Ukraine until he did so. How do we know that? Because Biden later bragged about it in a session that was videotaped and we have the tape. Moreover, unlike President Trump’s request to the current President of Ukraine to investigate Biden’s role, Biden’s demand was met and the prosecutor was fired. It seems to me that the prosecutor would make a good witness in President Trump’s trial by the Senate. And the tape showing Biden bragging he got the prosecutor fired should certainly be shown, in a session open to the public and press.
Again, the evidence is circumstantial. Biden himself may or may not have profited by the deal, though his son obviously did. Joe Biden’s mind may be too pure for the thought of nepotism ever to have crossed it. His son may have brought unrecognized qualities to the gas company’s board, say, a particular grace in ass-kissing (always useful in business).
But the possibility that all this may be brought into the very bright light of a trial of a sitting president by the Senate must have serious Democratic politicians such as Pelosi worried. I suspect that if she needs encouragement to block it, Mr. Biden is providing it, frequently and loudly. That is why she is demanding Senate Republicans agree with Democrats on a structure for the trial before she sends over the articles of impeachment (without which President Trump may not have been impeached; Constitutional law scholars are in disagreement on that point).
{See former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy’s analysis of this issue.}
That structure will have to make a trial of Joe Biden in the court of public opinion impossible or the articles will not be sent. There is no reason the Senate Republican leadership should agree to the Democrats’ demand. Or is there? It seems a few Republican Senators also had dealings with that Ukrainian gas company. The Senate Majority Leader’s phone may be receiving calls almost as frantic as those Madam Pelosi is probably getting from the Biden campaign.
It is obviously in President Trump’s interest to turn his trial into a trial of Joe Biden. It means the end of Biden’s candidacy and it justifies Mr. Trump’s request to the President of Ukraine. The Democrats will have ended up destroying their own best bet to retake the White House instead of President Trump.
All it takes for this story to unfold is some brains and some guts on the part of the Senate Republican leadership. If a couple of Republican Senators get caught up in it too, well, they are not ones whose loss we should lament. There are only two Republican Senators in that category, Rand Paul and Mike Lee. Neither of them was getting money from Ukrainian gas enterprises.
Posted at Traditional Right on 28 December 2016.
Re-posted with the author’s generous permission.
——————————
Biden boasting about his intervention in Ukraine
See former VP Joe Biden’s comments at the Council on Foreign Relations on 23 January 2018. He neglected to mention that the prosecutor was investigating the blatantly corrupt appearing deal with his son. With that information, this no longer looks heroic, and his observations about corruption in Ukraine hit closer to home than he intended.
“I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. I’ll give you one concrete example. I was – not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to – convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.
“So they said they had – they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to – or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said – I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
About the author
William S. Lind is director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. He has a Master’s Degree in History from Princeton University in 1971. He worked as a legislative aide for armed services for Senator Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 to 1976 and held a similar position with Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from 1977 to 1986. See his bio at Wikipedia.
Mr. Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook
He’s perhaps best known for his articles about the long war, now published as On War: The Collected Columns of William S. Lind 2003-2009
- His posts at TraditionalRight.
- His articles about geopolitics at The American Conservative.
- His articles about transportation at The American Conservative.
For More Information
Ideas! For ideas how to spend your holiday cash, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.
Best analysis I have seen of the charges against Trump: “The Articles of Impeachment Are Very Weak” by former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.
Please like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Also see all posts about UkraineGate, about campaign 2020, and especially these posts …
- The amazing Trump-Ukraine-Whistleblower story in a nutshell.
- See behind the impeachment stories to learn about America.
- Welcome to Third World America. Stand by for a coup.
- The Deep State emerges. This will change America forever.
- UkraineGate is logic, perhaps destiny, at work.
New books to help us better understand these events
Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency
Hate Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another
“That (Biden’s self-serving and possibly criminal behavior) is why she is demanding Senate Republicans agree with Democrats on a structure for the trial before she sends over the articles of impeachment.”
Why shouldn’t the Senate hold the impeachment trial even if Pelosi never sends over the articles of impeachment? Mitch would say that the Senate must do its duty even if the House will not. “Pelosi political ploys have no place in the Senate!”
“Why shouldn’t the Senate hold the impeachment trial even if Pelosi never sends over the articles of impeachment?”
Simple answer: because they can’t. Impeachment is a process and the process needs to be followed as dictated by the rules of impeachment.
I think of the impeachment process like the legal process involving a grand jury, (the House of Representatives). A prosecutor will have a Grand Jury look at evidence and determining if there is enough evidence to determine if there are ground for an indictment. Also like a Grand Jury, the accused is not permitted any defence in the process because it is not a trial but a procedure to determine “grounds” for a trial. Should the Grand Jury, (the House of Representatives), determine that there are “grounds”, then the prosecutor is empowered to proceed with and indictment against the accused. This is the point at which the impeachment process is now, charges of wrongdoing, (articles of impeachment) have been established. However, if the prosecutor does nothing with the indictment from the Grand Jury, then no trial takes place. Rules of impeachment require that “managers” be appointed to represent the House of Representatives in the Senate. The “managers” deliver to the Senate the articles of impeachment and read the charges to the Senate. If no “managers” are appointed, then the impeachment process stops. If the articles of impeachment are not properly delivered to the Senate, the process stops. While there are undoubtedly some flaws in the above metaphor, the general idea is there; the impeachment process is a process that needs to be followed and there are no provisions for an alternative process.
Thanks Edward.
Political timing question. Is it better for the republicans to let the democrats nominate Biden and then show the relevant parts of the video in this post or destroy his candidacy sooner?
Roger,
The video is not in the least incriminating without knowledge of the somewhat complex background. The news media could provide that, turning this into a smoking gun. But they won’t.
The Republicans could try and do so. I don’t know if they could do so with the major news media acting as the Democrat’s public relations team. More importantly, as Lind points out – they might not want this to be known, since they are also feeding from the trough. “People who live in glass houses …”
I appreciated your posting the entire clip as it provided some context to how our relationship with Ukraine has been strained for awhile. In the old days I assume PBS News Hour would of covered some context around the story.
The odds of the former moderators of Firing Line getting back together to discuss the topic(s) are unlikely. I have to admit it would be interesting to have Jon Stewart involved too-
“Some Thoughts on Best of Enemies”
The post above was one of the links in last nights Nightcap.
Kakatoa,
Thank you for posting those links. Pointing to interesting perspectives is always appreciated!
Personally, I disagree with some of the points in the first article. That is, I agree that those “left vs. right” talk shows are as informing as watching animals fight in Rome’s Colosseum. However, I disagree with the author’s analysis. Here are two quotes —
“The world’s definitely going to hell in a hand basket, but it always has been.”
This is absolutely false. It’s the now-commonplace assumption that all of history – everywhere, everywhen – is like us. It’s the comforting assumption that we’re doing OK, none better than us. That history is a vague blur. In reality, there are good spots and bad spots, at good times and bad times.
Everything that Buckley says seems smart, but imo a large fraction of it is shallow. Such as this…
“Does television ruin America? There is an implicit conflict if interest between that which is highly viewable and that which is highly illuminating.”
We live in a free market. TV is not beamed to us neither from God nor aliens, but from corporations that try to sell their wares. Their products is “highly viewable” for the same reason McDonald’s burgers have lots of fat and salt: that is what we want. If we wanted to be “illuminated”, these executives would provide content that does so.
This goes an absolutely vital point: Americans have become masters at blaming others for our own faults. This is wrecking the Republic, because it requires citizens who assume responsibility for their actions and their government. As I taught Boy Scouts for 15 years, the essence of leadership is not power or strength – but responsibility.
Roger,
The video has been making the rounds for months; https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/?fbclid=IwAR3LnDrITMI_GeswkSR5T74WhsqYfPI2I61ybr4Rh7gbGd3cHVbGigfsYt0
Ron,
Do you read the post before commenting? That is the exact same video that is in this post. I suggest that you read my note about it in the post.
Larry,
I know it’s the same video but it saves time looking at an almost hour long video to view the important part within it.
“It seems a few Republican Senators also had dealings with that Ukrainian gas company.”
What kind of dealings did “Rand Paul and Mike Lee” have and where could look I find out more about those dealings.
Thank you
Edward,
“What kind of dealings did “Rand Paul and Mike Lee” have and where could look I find out more about those dealings.”
Let’s replay what Lind said, bold emphasis added:
“There are only two Republican Senators in that category, Rand Paul and Mike Lee. Neither of them was getting money from Ukrainian gas enterprises.”
He referred to Paul and Lee as the “couple of Republican Senators …whose loss we should lament.”
Mr Kummer;
Thank you for your interpretation of the last three sentences of the article “If a couple of Republican Senators get caught up in it too, well, they are not ones whose loss we should lament. There are only two Republican Senators in that category, Rand Paul and Mike Lee. Neither of them was getting money from Ukrainian gas enterprises.”
However, the sentence in question could easily be understood as follows: “If a couple of Republican Senators, (Rand Paul and Mike Lee), get caught up in it, (some sort of misdealing with the Ukraine such as what Biden might have been doing), too, well, they, (Rand Paul and Mike Lee), are not ones whose loss, (the two of them losing their Senate seats), we should lament. There are only two Republican Senators in that category, (Republican Senators who “get caught up in it” or only two Republican Senators whose loss we should lament), Rand Paul and Mike Lee. Neither of them was getting money from Ukrainian gas enterprises, (what is seemingly implied: ‘but the two of them may have been doing something else regarding the Ukraine not related to getting money from gas enterprises’).
I would submit that the use of pronouns allow for a difference in understanding but the use of the term “a couple of Republican Senators”, followed by naming two Republican Senators, would logically cause one to understand that the two Senators being named were the “couple of Republican Senators” being referred to as getting “caught up in it”, with “it” referring to possible misdealings with the Ukraine, the same as Biden, even though what the may have done did not involve getting money from gas enterprises, (but possibly getting money from other enterprises or a misuse of their Senatorial Offices for example.)
As for the explanation you provided; “He referred to Paul and Lee as the “couple of Republican Senators …whose loss we should lament.”; I would suggest that there are more than just two Republicans whose “loss we should lament”.
I would also like to point out that what was written in the article was, “There are only two Republican Senators in that category, Rand Paul and Mike Lee” rather than what was stated in your reply: “couple of Republican Senators …whose loss we should lament.” Leaving the phrase, “in that category”, out of the reply misses the most critical part because it is the phrase “in that category“ that clearly refers to some sort of grouping and the grouping being talked about in the previous sentence was, “they are NOT the ones whose loss we should lament”.
Again, thank you for your response but I respectfully disagree with the interpretation given although I do agree with you that both Senators Paul and Lee are of great value to the Senate and whose loss would be unfortunate.
Respectfully;
Edward Lunt
This is starting to remind me of Germany during the Cold War. Both sides had war plans that they never quite dared to put into effect. Maybe the US and Russia would have slugged it out if they both knew the collateral damage would have been confined to Germany, but that’s not how it would have gone down, and everyone knew it. The collateral damage here won’t be confined to the Bidens. In fact, senator McConnell used the phrase “Mutual assured destruction” in an interview with Fox Radio explaining why the Republicans don’t want witnesses called.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475906-senate-gop-wants-speedy-trump-acquittal
Try to imagine any random five Russiagate/Ukrainegate figures of your choice under oath, being questioned by hostile opposing counsel in front of God and everybody. Before it was all over the lot of these weasels would be taking the Fifth. So I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m pretty sure that what’s not going to happen is anything resembling a proper trial. Besides, I’m not sure that was ever the goal of the Ukraine Hoax. It may have been to create a permanent impeachment investigation, since the investigations have thus far been pretty effective at crippling the Administration.
A lot of the answer to the question Lind poses depends on what the actual goal of the Ukraine Hoax was, and we really don’t know that. I don’t think it was a Senate impeachment trial, unless that could be conducted without witnesses being called. I always thought that the goal might have been to get the Republicans to abandon Trump and persuade him to resign, Nixon style. That is entirely speculative, but given the secrecy in which the Deep State operates, sometimes speculation is all we have.
The flow of treasure, slaves, and loot from the decaying Hellenistic kingdoms changed the Roman Republic in ways from which there was no coming back. The flow of loot from the former Soviet Empire may have done something similar to the American Republic.
A consummation devoutly to be wished. Biden is weak and gaff-prone. If he gets brought down by Russiagate, Sanders’ chances at the nomination go way up. Of course, Sanders is a much better match up against Trump so I’m sure Republicans would much prefer Biden to get the nomination before this does any damage to him.
Here we have James Howard Kunstler on his forecast for everything in 2020 especially the election: “Forecast 2020 — Whirlin’ and Swirlin’.”
Election 2020
etc. etc.
Michael,
I talk with Kunstler frequently. He’s a great writer, well-informed, and brilliant. There is little we agree on, but the conversations are always interesting – and I learn a lot from him.
As for this election – As always, remember the insight with which everything makes sense. It’s ClownWorld – a phase of the Crazy Years. Predictions based on rational analysis don’t work. After all, we have Trump in the White House. Perhaps the Democrats will nominate Bloomberg’s daughter’s horse as their Presidential candidate. Anything is possible.
In normal times, people gained insight about politics by reading Aristotle’s Politics or the Federalist Papers. Now I recommend reading old copies of the Dr. Strange comic books.
Thanks Larry–
I agree with nearly everything Kunstler says, especially his mad-mad vision for 2020 and beyond, as the world, and even the Catholic Church (“Pope” Francis is nuts), departs from God. And I like reading your stuff because it often supplies an alternate view to mine–which, I know very well, is often wrong in one way or another.
Happy New Year. Let us say a prayer the God will inspire us to be kinder and gentler to one another in 2020.