On December 5, following a whirlwind trip to Madrid for the United Nations' COP25 "Climate Change" conference, Nancy Pelosi rushed back to Washington, D.C., to announce in a press conference that the Democratic Party is now drawing up articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. This comes after the release on December 3 of a 300 page report by Rep. Adam Schiff's Intelligence Committee, accusing Trump of "abuse of power", among other charges, and after a Judiciary Committee hearing, which featured three anti-Trump, highly partisan "legal scholars" who asserted that the Founding Fathers included impeachment in the U.S. Constitution as a measure to defend against precisely the actions taken by Trump in dealing with Ukraine! A fourth witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor from George Washington University and a self-identified Democrat, dissented in his testimony, insisting that the "rush to judgement" against the President represents an "abuse of power" by the Congressional Democrats!
On November 18, in the midst of hearings by the regime-change coup plotters aimed at removing President Trump, the President was meeting with his Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. For such a meeting to occur is highly unusual. Trump summoned Powell to the meeting, from which little of note has been reported. He tweeted afterwards only that “Everything was discussed,” while Powell’s comments were couched in the usual opaque Fed-speak, that future policy will depend on “incoming information that bears on the outlook for the economy,” and the Fed will make policy “based solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis,” blah, blah, blah....
To watch the non-stop media coverage of the Star Chamber/Soviet-style impeachment proceedings underway by Democrats and their London-based neocon imperial backers against President Donald Trump, one might for a moment be led to believe that they are acting with the best interests of U.S. and Ukraine's security in mind—especially because that is what they insist they are doing!
Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.
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.