Trump +985: Ukraine and Impeachment

A CIA whistleblower in the White House has ignited the fires of impeachment, exposing an episode of blatant corruption and disregard for the law on the part of the president. Would that it were so simple. In truth, the whole thing smells rotten. It smells like the Deep State has decided to make its move. Trump is as dirty as they come and yet once again the case being made against him is self-serving to the interests of those who would have him removed, even while they ignore his myriad high crimes and misdemeanors.

Why is this happening now? We can only guess but perhaps there is a fear of Biden's campaign collapsing. The Democratic field is pretty weak and Biden is really the only candidate that stands a chance of taking Trump down. Some would dispute that claim and yet any other candidate would represent a serious risk. Rather than gamble by backing a potential dotard, they've determined the iron is hot and the Establishment mainstream has decided to strike. If they wait until 2020, it will be too late.

Adam Schiff's star is rising. The California Democrat continues to play a very vocal role and will (it would seem) continue to do so during this process. As chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence he's destined (along with speaker Pelosi) to play a key role in the coming drama. Pelosi's somewhat unique move to place the inquiry in the hands of this committee has suddenly boosted Schiff's profile.

Schiff, a Right-wing Democrat who has aggressively promoted war and US militarism has expressed concern for the still anonymous CIA whistleblower. There's a great irony here that many have already commented on. While the CIA agent (or perhaps asset) must be protected at all costs and the principles of whistle blowing upheld and defended, the same concerns it would seem do not apply to figures like Edward Snowden, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning or to publishers such as Julian Assange. The three men, two of which are in custody, all face indictment and long term incarceration for revealing the crimes and constitutional violations of the US government, the very thing Schiff and Pelosi defend and lionise when it comes to the CIA whistleblower's revelations regarding Donald Trump. Hypocrisy always leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

Once again it must be said that Trump has committed dozens of impeachable offenses and violations of the US Constitution but since taking office it's clear the Democrats want to pursue his removal on the basis of 'National Security'. This is in keeping with what might be called a Three-Prong Strategy, one they have stuck to even in the face of serious setbacks and the collapse of the Mueller probe.

They don't want to just remove Trump. He must be removed in the context of foreign policy. The large Establishment faction that wants Trump gone wants to use his removal to pivot US military energies toward an aggressive Anti-Moscow policy. The collusion pseudo-narrative gives justification for this 'pivot', a shift which has already taken place and one which Trump has in no small part already supported... but not with sufficient zeal.

In addition to removing Trump and ramping up pressure on Moscow, an impeachment on this basis will give yet another huge boost to the ever-growing Security State and its calls for surveillance and censorship.

Schiff and Pelosi are fully on board with this programme and agenda. And it must be said there are not a few Republicans that would also be in agreement, though they are publically hindered by political obligations, perceptions and alliance. For example if Trump were removed, the political theatre would certainly continue and yet once the dust settled a bit, figures like Pence, Bolton, Graham and others would actually support the policies regarding Russia and the US Security State and with great vigour at that. Despite the politics and the optics, they're actually in agreement with the Anti-Russia policy and the larger Neo-Conservative agenda which continues to hold sway within large sectors of the US Establishment, regardless of political party.

It's perhaps a great irony but the Neo-Con policies so vilified during the Bush era are actually now fairly dominant even in Democratic circles. Say what you will, the agenda continued (modified but largely unhindered) under the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton clearly echoed the same agenda as do politicians like Schiff and other military-intelligence affiliated figures within the DNC.

Indeed as mentioned in previous writings the 'unhinged' Trump narrative and the 'Republic in peril' warnings have proven to be false as even the Democrats under Pelosi have consistently voted to expand and fund the growth of the surveillance and security state giving powers and tools to Trump that if they were really concerned about him, they could have blocked and restricted. Make no mistake they don't like him or what he represents and they want him gone and yet much of this is just theatre. Trump represents a minority faction within the Establishment and yet he is still part of the 'elite' world which he in good populist fashion pretends to denounce.

Therefore there's great reason to be sceptical regarding the White House whistleblower narrative. Given the nature of the claims (which seemed at least initially to be based on hearsay) and the way in which the House is handling it... it smells like a Deep State maneuver, a palace coup.

The demands made on the Trump administration will undoubtedly lead to more instances of obstruction which the media and the House will use to make the administration look more guilty. Schiff has already indicated that the House Select Committee will pursue Trump phone calls with Putin, giving every indication that they will attempt to widen the Ukraine inquiry and in doing so will undoubtedly lead to resistance on the part of the White House.

Russiagate was and remains a fiction, however Trump and his people are into a lot of dirty stuff. There's no other way to put it. There's a great deal of corruption that could be uncovered and yet a considerable amount of it is connected (at least tangentially) to the wider US Establishment. The Ukraine revelations regarding the Biden's are just such an example. The 'investigation' is necessarily a delicate operation as Mueller's failure has demonstrated. By moving the inquiry into Schiff's committee, much will be kept hidden and under cover.

This will also allow figures like Schiff to strut and parade in front of the media denouncing Trump's crimes and to play up the Russia angle, even while the larger context and back-story remains hidden. The media paints Trump as Putin's marionette even while his administration has imposed severe sanctions on Russia and has consistently threatened Moscow by unilateral withdrawal from the INF Treaty. The Trump White House has militarily supported Ukraine and like Obama has quietly supported the paramilitaries operating in the Donbass, some of which are Neo-Nazis. The media has largely failed to report that the US has continued to maintain close ties to these elements connected to the Ukrainian government and the 2014 US-backed Maidan Coup.

In addition the Trump administration has ramped up NATO's military presence on Russia's borders, bombed Russia's ally in Syria and has pursued Moscow's ally in Caracas by attempting regime change.

Trump is no friend of Putin but rather than start a war with Moscow, he would like to pursue a confrontation with China, something some within the US Establishment don't want to see at this time. Their policy is probably best described as Containment with regard to Beijing while with regard to Moscow, they're pursuing an aggressive Rollback policy which they hope will culminate in regime change.

Additionally Trump has angered the mainstream Establishment in supporting the Neo-Conservative policy with regard to Iran. The mainstream or majority Establishment backed the Iran nuclear deal because the hope was that normalisation of relations with the Islamic Republic would lead to the pacification of Iraq and additionally there was the hope of pulling Tehran out of Moscow's column. This was destined to downgrade US-Saudi relations and yet the hope was that Russia would be isolated and it would also amplify the opportunity to bring about regime change in Damascus.

This is not to say the mainstream doesn't support regime change in Tehran. They do, but given present geopolitical realities in the Middle East and the more pressing issues of both Russia and China, the policy of overt aggression against Iran has been put on the backburner.  On this point Trump is (seemingly) in agreement with the bellicose Neo-Conservatives and yet for the most part he's never really been fully on board with their policies. Content to be surrounded by Neo-Con figures like Pence and Pompeo, the extremist views of John Bolton proved too much and the inconstant Trump dismissed him.

And yet there are substantial factions within the US government and security apparatus that view Iran as 'the' regional danger that needs to be removed. This view overshadows any policies with regard to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and even the larger Middle East in general. Their anger goes back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and it's by no coincidence that some of these factions retain close ties with Riyadh and other Gulf Arab regimes. Additionally they are particularly optimistic with regard to bin Salman and his 'liberalising' and pro-Israeli policies.

Trump of course is a child and potentially dangerous. He cares only about his own profile and if there's a way he can profit from the chaos he will certainly seek to capitalise on it, even if it risks destabilising the country. The Evangelical leader and rabid Trump supporter Robert Jeffress made headlines this week when he started talking about a Second Civil War. His comments were echoed by Trump and received considerable (and deserved) condemnation by political figures and the media.

The danger is real and seems to be growing by the day. Jeffress' comments were grossly irresponsible, dangerous and from a Christian perspective, wicked. But Evangelicalism has a long record of disregarding New Testament doctrine and ethics. This reached a new level with the era of Donald Trump. The movement is mired in cultural norms, worldliness and the corruption that comes with riches and power. Jeffress, a false prophet who is both corrupt and a corrupter is hardly unique. Others such as David Barton have been saying the same thing for some time. And yet Jeffress does represent a right-wing faction within Evangelical circles that is dangerous both in terms of the foreign policy they support and the growing push for violence and civil war in the United States. Their heresies extend beyond doctrine and the danger to souls. They literally have blood on their hands and like the vampires they are... it's not enough. They want more. Their kingdom, their pseudo-Zion is one built on blood and treasure and their appetites are insatiable. These are dangerous people who represent a theology which in the end is as dangerous and anti-Biblical as the theological liberals they so zealously condemn.

This political firestorm will continue to divide the American Church as the fanatics will obsess about this and little else and dissenters will increasingly be treated as heretics. The Evangelicals (and probably most Confessionalists) have sought to change the culture and the political order but instead they have allowed these battles to invade and transform the Church. The betrayals and poisons born of the Constantinian era rear their head over and over again throughout the history of the Church. The disruptions of the present are no exception.

What has surprised me with the whole Jeffress Civil War kerfuffle is that while the mainstream media has made much of it, the Christian media has downplayed it or remained silent. This too is a cause for concern and points (once again) to the absurdity and corruption within Christian media circles.

What about that now notorious phone call between Trump and Zelensky? Was it out of line? Was it anomalous?

Actually it was business as usual.

To threaten to withhold aid is part of the normal operations of the US statecraft. That's a big part in why the aid is given. It's a carrot and stick method that's often used right on the floor of the UN Security Council. The difference is this... it's usually done quietly and the president is more likely to use middle-men. Think of the mafia. The Don gives the orders to intermediaries so that he's insulated or in political terms so that there's plausible deniability. These things are usually hashed out prior to the presidents or leaders of two countries meeting face to face or getting on the phone.

Interestingly it was Nixon who tried to run foreign policy out of the White House and yet that's not what 'got him' in the end. Trump has likewise decimated the State Department and prefers a direct or hands on approach to foreign policy. Not only does such a method ignore the many 'tools' the US possesses in the State Department, it runs some serious political risks and while it can amplify victories (like Nixon and China) it can also expose failures. If for example Trump fails to secure a deal with North Korea, his antics will become part of future diplomatic curricula... the lessons of failure and why executive level unilateral diplomacy is not only destined to fail but harms any future prospects.

Despite the diminishing of the State Department, Secretary Pompeo himself has retained a great deal of power. The former CIA director's capacity is not just as Secretary of State but as a leading figure in the administration. In that sense (although to a much lesser degree) he's functioning more as someone like Kissinger in the Nixon and Ford administrations.

What about pressing a foreign government to investigate a rival? Once again, I don't think that's nearly as unusual as is being pretended. The Democrats sought information on Trump from Ukraine of all places. No irony there. The Israelis and particularly Likud regularly collaborate with the Republican Party. Investigations, surveillance and intelligence are regularly outsourced or done via proxies. It's just how things are done. The letter of the law is broken on a regular basis but it's also a game of musical chairs and when the music stops you had better make sure you've got a seat or you're left exposed.

This was a substantial sub-theme in the movie Syriana. A congressman is taken down by violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and his character is both indignant and incredulous. He hasn't done anything out of the ordinary and of course he's right. And yet his indictment isn't about him or even the law. It's a political game and he's a pawn being sacrificed so that a massive corporate merger can take place. The music had stopped, the media was looking and it was clear that something shady happened with regard to an oil company and some of its foreign contracts. By indicting the congressman nothing was going to change, nothing was going to be fixed, the really guilty parties weren't going to be held to account, but the Justice Department needed to make it look they were doing their job. There had to be the perception of due diligence and an aspiring politician wanted a feather in his cap. They went after a small guy who didn't cover his bases. He was big enough to earn a feather but small enough to be expendable.

So for Trump it's a question of the political music has stopped and suddenly he and some of those around him have no chair. They're exposed. This likewise has nothing to do with some grievous violation of the law or the norms of diplomacy or foreign policy. It's a game. Trump's corruption is excessive and yet in this specific case, he's really not doing any more or less than what happens on a daily basis. But one thing can be said, his style and disregard for protocol, even when it's unspoken has tied a noose that he's now in danger of hanging himself with.

I am genuinely amazed that the Democrats have chosen to focus on this particular angle as indeed the Biden's are dirty and this story has the potential to corrupt his presidential campaign. Again some argue this is deliberate and his candidacy is no longer viewed as viable and this is a convenient way to remove him. Maybe.

But then again after partaking of CNN and other mainstream media outlets it's clear this angle of the story is (like the actual information revealed by Wikileaks regarding Hilary Clinton) going to be aggressively ignored.

Additionally these so-called Leftist news outlets are going to beat the drums of war in keeping with the Three-Prong strategy mentioned above. I listened to a laughable even absurd interview on NPR with the former US ambassador to Ukraine (and now a director at the Atlantic Council) John Herbst in which he cast the whole Ukraine controversy as a question of Russian aggression. It was a pathetic softball interview that simply rubber-stamped the aggressive policies and narratives of US imperialism vis-à-vis Moscow. It was hardly an adversarial interview and its entire premise was in keeping with the Right-wing norms of the US Establishment.

Hunter Biden's story is one of privilege and corruption. His dad has successfully played the working man from Scranton card and it works for a lot of people. As one who lives in the Pennsylvania Rust Belt I can testify to this fact. A lot of Blue Collar Democrats who hated Obama (and dislike much of the 2020 DNC presidential field) are fully behind Biden. He's the guy that can speak their language... socially moderate, Right-wing when it comes to the military and law enforcement, he presents himself as a pro-union, pro-labor, blue collar patriotic guy who wears a suit. These same people will never get behind perceived Leftists or minority candidates... which eliminates much of the field.

The truth is that the Biden's are part of the super wealthy US political elite. As a young college graduate Hunter was hired by MBNA which led many to snicker and rightly so. MBNA is the largest credit card provider in the United States and like so many in the credit industry, it's based in Biden's state of Delaware. He has long served their interests in Washington.

Hunter went on to seek a career in lobbying which again was really only possible due to his familial connections. His only real qualification is his surname. The fact that his dad was vice-president opened the door up to the Ukraine and his very profitable relationships with Ukrainian gas companies and the like.

Once again this is nothing new. The Bush's cashed in after the 1991 Gulf War and those connected to the Kosovo War and secession have likewise claimed victor's spoils. The fact that Obama administration figures would capitalise their 2014 Ukraine triumph is once again par for the course.

In the end Trump is dangerous and corrupt. The DNC is likewise dangerous and corrupt but with a more polished style and as a group they toe the line with regard to Establishment protocols. Trump's the 'bad boy' on the team but despite all the protestations... he's still very much part of Team US Empire.

What will happen next? Who knows?

In one sense a great deal of this is theatre, a performance of smoke and mirrors. The real battles are behind the scenes and involve issues that won't be discussed in the media. There is an Establishment Civil War taking place and it's intensifying. The prize is nothing less than the US Empire and a chance to rule the world.

It's interesting to watch but I would only be half as interested except for the fact that hordes of false teachers have dragged the Church into this mess and like it or not it is and will continue to affect the life of the Church and the thinking of the average man sitting in the pew. Trump has polarised the Evangelical world and while on the one hand it's encouraging to see some opposition to him, on the other hand the cures are (in the end) just as disease ridden. These conflicts will only bring out the worst in people and will generate more distractions. In the meantime the sentry posts have been abandoned and the world, its culture and its values are flooding in. The leaders of the Evangelical movement are going to give an account for what they've done (and failed to do) over the past generation. And unfortunately I believe even darker chapters lie before us. It is this ecclesiastical dimension that is (to me) the saddest aspect of this whole cultural and political struggle that has reached a watershed in the presidency of Donald Trump.