Former leading FBI agent Peter Strzok texted his mistress in May 2017, regarding the case against Donald Trump, that his "gut sense" was that "there's no big there there"—meaning that there was nothing behind the charges of collusion with Russia. Today, it is equally clear that in the Pelosi-Schiff impeachment investigation over Ukraine, once again, "there's no big there there."
The vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on October 31, to authorize guidelines for the next phase of a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, means that the 2020 presidential election will be shaped by a dynamic between two competing inquiries: the current fabricated impeachment drive to remove the President, over a fake narrative of a phone call to Ukraine's President, versus the criminal inquiry into the origins of Russiagate, under the direction of Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham. The 232-196 vote to proceed to the next phase of impeachment was, with three exceptions, on strict party lines, with all but two Democrats voting for it, while one anti-Trump independent, Rep. Amash, voted with the Democrats.
The announcement last week, that the investigation into the origin of Russiagate by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham has shifted from an "administrative review" to a "criminal inquiry", has profound implications for those involved in running the regime change coup against President Trump. This change means that Durham now has subpoena power to gain access to documents, can impanel a Grand Jury, and can file criminal charges. According to ABC News, Durham is looking into the actions of former CIA Director John Brennan, and Obama's Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, both of whom played pivotal roles in initiating the "Get Trump" regime change operation.
Hillary Clinton's outrageous comments about Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, as bizarre as they were, reflect an underlying rot in the party shaping its approach to the 2020 election. If it continues, it threatens to undermine a promising, positive shift initiated by President Trump, away from the unilateralism of London-directed American neocons, which has been responsible for two decades of American wars in the Middle East, wars which have been fully backed by Clinton and her allies. Her loss to Donald Trump in 2016 became the trigger for her increasingly unhealthy public obsession with Russia and its President Vladimir Putin, and his alleged control over Trump. But that obsession predated her election defeat, going back to her time as Secretary of State, when she engaged in open meddling in Russian elections in 2011, as well as her support for the bloody coup in Libya, also in 2011, and promotion of the violent civil war in Syria, both countries she described as assets of Russia. Further, it was her campaign which hired Fusion GPS to do "operation research" to use in the campaign against Trump, which produced the fabricated dossier of former MI6 operative Christopher Steele, the basis for claims that Russia "meddled" in the election on Trump's behalf.
The agreement reached between Turkish President Erdogan and U.S. Vice President Pence for a temporary ceasefire in the Turkish incursion into northern Syria demonstrates a strategic principle which has reduced the war party in the U.S. to impotent flailing and hysterical threats. While there is still much more to do to consolidate a new era which would end the "unending wars" in southwest Asia, Trump has temporarily successfully outflanked his war-loving opponents.
President Donald Trump's decision to pull back U.S. troops from their positions in northeast Syria, which he announced on October 6, has provoked a virulent outcry against him from the war party, which dominates elected officials in both parties, think tanks in the Washington, D.C. area, and most of the nation's media. They responded to his announcement with a flood of disinformation and outright lies, which is typical of the anti-Trump diatribes that has been their modus operandi of the last three-plus years, as they have tried to protect the imperial geopolitical status quo, and its predilection for wars.
Not Impeachment, But a Coup: Dems Attack On Trump is a Disgusting Defense of Collapsing Imperial Order
As the Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives are racing to impeach Donald Trump, the President tweeted on October 1, "As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a coup." The Democrats who have begun impeachment proceedings, such as Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, have been demanding the removal of Trump from office since virtually the day of his inauguration. With the announcement of a "whistle blower's" complaint that Trump abused his position to demand that Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky aid in digging up "dirt" on Joe Biden, his possible opponent in 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had previously tried to tamp down discussion of impeachment, suddenly shifted her position on September 24, and the race for impeachment was on.
What led to this sudden rush to judgement against Trump?
This article was co-authored with Paul Gallagher
While most eyes watching events unfold at the UN Climate Action Summit were focused on the abused and rage-filled teen, Greta Thunberg, the truth about who is writing her script came out later that day, on September 23, when Bank of England Governor Mark Carney delivered his warning that, according to the largest banks in the world, no alternative to investments that shift industry “from brown to green” will be tolerated.