Diana West on #ImpeachTrump: Doomsdays of the Endgame, Part 1

This and more at DianaWest.net

This week, the towering anti-communist dissident Vladimir Bukovsky was laid to rest in a London cemetery. In Washington, American democracy threw dirt on itself.

Impervious to the irony, the Democrats of the House of Representatives staged another fake impeachment “show trial” in its coup like no other to thwart the anti-communist will of the American electorate that sent Donald Trump to the White House. 

The battle is not drawn in such terms; they have been taken from us. But to understand the desperate, unceasing efforts to unseat President Trump requires a longer lens on recents events, one that can focus on over a century of what Whittaker Chambers described as “the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation.” Chambers was writing in the 1950s, when the socialist “New Deal” was only two decades old. In 2016, six decades past Chambers, as the socialist ice cap had all but completely smothered our democratic republic, Donald Trump won the presidency. With his agenda to save America by restoring the nation-state, President Trump became a one-man counter-revolutionary army.

The revolutionaries within — leading figures in what is known as “the Swamp” — responded as true Marxists do: by any means necessary. And why not? Their ideological roots in varieties of Marxism are documented in my short book, The Red Thread. The dangers they pose in these end-stages of our democratic republic cannot be overstated. That makes Election 2020 our D-Day for re-taking our Swamp-occupied continent. Maybe the second time around, a wiser, battle-tested counter-revolutionary Trump will call in reserves who actually support him. This is precisely what our deeply embedded and powerful communistic enemies, confronting this unexpected American “insurgency,” fear more than anything.

Reluctant or unable to imagine the war in these terms, Republicans have rallied as misdirected. In Adam Schiff’s kangaroo court of an “impeachment inquiry,” they did not call out the treason all around, or even stand up on their hind legs and ask Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman if the intelligence official he admitted leaking the Trump-Zelensky phone call to was, as reported, Eric “Whistleblower” Ciaramella of the CIA. By the way, in her October 14 deposition, Fiona Hill, another star chamber witness this week, *forgot* that it was Ciaramella who was NSC Ukraine director when she joined the White House. 

So it was that the GOP scored the easy points on contradictions in witness testimonies, many undoubtedly perjurious; contrary to the appalling case of Roger Stone, however, perjury charges will never be referred for indictment, let alone go to trial. However satisfying, like junk food, in the moment, none of these accrued debating points will cause the House to reject the coup in its impeachment stage; nor will they arouse the sleeping American people to the highest stages of concern for their republic.

Perhaps Republicans came closest to exposing one of the underlying Big Lies of the impeachment inquiry when Rep. Chris Stewart zeroed in on Lt. Col. Vindman’s attitude toward bona fide high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Joe Biden, according to Biden’s own, uncoerced videotaped confession. Sounding like the mob capo Adam Schiff channeled when the House Intelligence Committee Chairman (never, ever forget) read to the American people a call transcript he had made up, Biden had bragged that as vice president he gave Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating corruption in his son Hunter’s oil and gas company, Burisma (then paying Hunter $80,000/month) — Or Else; the “or else” being the loss of one billion dollars in America aid. Talk about “quid pro quo.” Talk about corruption. Talk about bribery. Talk about mixing personal gain with the affairs of state. 

What did Vindman have to say about that? Here is the brief exchange.

Rep. Stewart: There are dozens of corrupt nations in the world, hundreds of corrupt government officials. Exactly one time did a vice president go to a nation and demand the specific firing of one individual and give a six-hour time limit and withhold or threaten to withhold a billion dollars in aid if not. It was the one individual who was investigating a company who was paying his son. I’ll ask you: Was that also “wrong”?

LTC Vindman: I, that is not what I understand — I, frankly, don’t have any first-hand knowledge of that.

Stewart: You haven’t seen the video?

Vindman: I’ve seen the video.

Stewart: That’s all I’ve described. Everything I just said to you was in the video. Was that “wrong” as well?

Vindman: Congressman, this is something I actually participated in and (unintelligible) …

[Oh really? That’s interesting!]

Stewart: Well, I think the American people can make a judgment.

Vindman: … that I don’t know —

Chairman Schiff: The time of the gentleman has expired. Colonel Vindman, if you would like to answer the question, you’re more than welcome to.

Vindman: I frankly don’t know any, that much more about that particular incident. I saw the snippet of the video, but I don’t know if I could make a judgment off that.

Any child, however, could make a judgment. It is former Vice President Biden who should be the subject of this “impeachment inquiry.” 

***

There was one extraordinary revelation to come out of Vindman testimony. Earlier this year, Vindman confirmed that the Ukrainian government invited him on three (3) occasions to lead the Ukrainian armies by joining the government of Ukraine as its minister of defense.

What?

When asked why the Ukrainians might have tried to hire him away from the White House and his country to lead the Ukrainian military, Vindman said he didn’t know. The question went largely unmined for its rich and deeper possibilities. What was really going on here? CIA whistleblower and former counterintelligence officer Kevin Shipp tweeted: “A foreign government pitches a US government intelligence official to come over and work for them? This is called an espionage pitch. What prompted Ukraine to do that? What is in Vindman’s personal life that made him a mark?” 

Vindman, meanwhile, made the whole affair sound routine. Other US service members, he claimed, took up positions in “the developing democracies in that part of the world, certainly in the Baltics” — a new one on me — and he even invoked an unnamed US Air Force officer who, he thought, had become “minister of defense.” Is this true? No idea. Still, why Vindman? What was it in this National Security Council official that made the Ukrainian government believe he had sufficient loyalty to its national destony to be entrusted with its national defense, not once, but three times?

When Vindman concluded his remarks by saying it was actually “kind of comical” for a lieutenant colonel in the US Army to be offered “that illustrious a position,” a shaft of sunlight appeared. Were these Ukrainian offers even designed to win Vindman’s acceptance? Jeff Nyquist saw through to another possible layer of motivation, tweeting: “I think it was was an “atta boy” from the Soviet Ukrainians.”

Atta boy? Soviet Ukrainians? Such notions will short-circuit the linkage between disinformation and conventional wisdom, linkage that deceptively or naively asserts that to be “Ukrainian” is to be safe from all Moscow subversion and inflitration, to be air-tight and walled-off from Moscow’s sophisticated, relentless, time- and battle-tested programs of Active Measures. (Active Measures is KGB-speak used, to quote a 1982 interagency definition, “to refer to active operations intended to provoke a policy effect, as distinct from espionage and counterintelligence. … Specifically, they are intended to influence the policies of foreign governments … undermine confidence in foreign leaders and institutions, and discredit opponents. …”) 

To disregard the history of Active Measures in Ukraine or anywhere else (of course, including in the United States) is not only absurd but reckless. However, such disregard is the basis of consensus across the political and media spectrum. It is widely believed that there seperately exist purely Russian vectors of influence and purely Ukrainian vectors of influence — that never the twain shall meet or be mixed, that never the long history of Soviet/Russian subversion of Ukraine and every other nation Moscow seeks to influence shall come under even theoretical consideration in trying to understand the facts of the anti-Trump, anti-America conspiracy, let along force them into the light.

As an aside, consider this graph showing that out of all the nationalities in the world, “Ukrainians” topped the list of foreig donors to the Clinton Foundation (1999-2014). “Russians” don’t even make the top 15. Really?

By week’s end, a new phase of Trump-Russia was taking shape, shepherded by the testimony of the curious Fiona Hill, (to be discussed in the next installment): We are now supposed to take sides on whether it was this separate state called Russia or this separate state called Ukraine that tried to influence the US election. Again, consider Nyquist’s notion of “Soviet Ukrainians” offering the defense ministry as a blandishment to the plump White House lieutenant colonel who has been so very cooperative and empathetic to “Ukrainian” interests….

Consider also that if there are Soviet Ukrainians, there are Soviet Americans, too.

To be cont’d

Speak Your Mind

*