Volodymyr Zelensky - survivor of survivors

In June of 1941, Hitler's Army began a rampage through Ukraine, razing towns, unleashing death squads, and massacring Jews by the hundreds of thousands. In one village in the Pale of Settlement, virtually the only region of the Soviet Empire in which Jews were permitted to reside, four Jewish brothers enlisted in the military, said goodbye to their parents, and walked off to fight the Nazis. 

By the war's end in 1945, only one of the brothers, named Semyon, was still alive. He returned to find that the Nazis had torched his entire village, burning his parents to death. Semyon's family was dead, and his beloved Ukraine was in ruins. 

The Nazis had murdered between 1.2 and 1.6 million Ukrainian Jews. Semyon married a fellow Ukrainian Jew who had survived the war by fleeing her city, in which the Nazis had killed 5,000 Jews. Two years later, in that same city, they had a son, Oleksandr, keeping alive the family line that the Nazis had brought a razor's width from extinction. 

Thirty-one years after that, Oleksandr had his own little boy. That boy was Volodymyr Zelensky, who grew up to become the President of independent, democratic Ukraine. 

Today, he leads his outmanned, outgunned, ferociously defiant nation against the onslaught of Russia. As Russia dashes itself against the will of his people, Zelensky, the survivor of survivors, summons the resilience of his ancestors. He does not bend. 

To Agent 5, Дякую тобі! Ed.

Impeachment witch-hunt: Another day of drivel

The Impeach-Trump=N-Matter-What hearings continued yesterday. Wednesday's TV snorefest supposedly was viewed, at least for a few minutes, by 13,000,000 Americans. (A handful of Canucks may have tuned in as well, since the never-Trumpers at the CBC managed to put the whole thing on their news website as well as their all-news channel.) The number watching yesterday has not been disclosed but is expected to be about 12,900,000 fewer.

Those who had better things to do may have received the impression, watching the (((controlled media))) news recaps, that the big shock of the day was former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch choking up when told that Still-President Trump had said nasty things about her, and was doing so, on Twitter, even as she spoke!

The chief reason for Ms Yovanovitch's appearance seemed to be to give her an opportunity to vent about the shock and dismay she felt when she was fired by President Trump "for no reason". She didn't actually try (as Tucker Carlson had predicated) but did appear terribly, terribly hurt.

Ms Yovanovitch gave no evidence, not even hearsay, about telephone calls made by President Trump to Ukrainian President Zelensky or to other US State Department hacks. Nor did she say anything about "quid pro quo" or "bribery". None of the allegations which the House Intelligence Committee [sic] is supposed to be investigating happened on her watch.

But she did spill the beans about something that happened while she was still Ambassador to the Ukraine, namely the firing of that country's top prosecutor, who, according to Ms Yovanovitch, was investigating the affairs of Burisma Holdings, thereby causing some embarrassment for one of its directors -- Hunter Biden -- and his father, Old Joe Biden, the presidential wannabe.

The HIC asked Ms Yovanovitch about the status of the Ukrainian government's probe into corruption at Burisma when Joe Biden pushed for the ouster of Viktor Shokin, the country’s prosecutor general, in 2016. In response, she admitted that conflicts of interest between the former vice-president and his youngest son were topics of concern for Obama administration officials during her confirmation as ambassador to Ukraine in 2016.

Her admission that Mr Shokin was looking for a "hook" with which to prosecute Burisma and its founder, Mykola Zlocvesky, undermines a central argument Biden père has made to defend his conduct. Since the story became central to the impeachment inquiry, Old Joe and his allies have tried to argue that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time of his firing and therefore the ouster of Mr Shokin actually improved the chances that the company would face stricter scrutiny. Besides, that was all done while the Prez was in office, so it was OK... nothing like the kind of meddling in the affairs of a foreign country of which President Trump is accused. Got it?

Not televised for some reason [nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Ed] was the testimony of David Holmes, the aide who claims that, while eating at a restaurant in Kiev, he overheard President Trump talking on the phone with Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union. See "Impeachment hearings: a word about hearsay", WWW 15/11/19 (includes video). Mr Trump's end of the conversation must have been difficult for Mr Holmes to hear, but (he says) he clearly overheard Mr Sondland telling President Trump that President Zelensky "loves your ass."

We can only speculate as to whether Mr Sondland was revealing an aspect to the Trump-Zelensky relationship which no-one would ever have suspected. Perhaps Mr Holmes didn't hear a key word. Perhaps Mr Sondland told the President that "Zelensky loves your wife's ass." [Makes more sense to me! Ed.] Or perhaps Mr Sondland was just speaking figuratively.

Other than that, Mr Holmes' testimony added little, serving to confirm only that Mr Trump was indeed interested in Ukraine undertaking "investigations" into 2016 election interference and the circumstances in which former Vice-President Joe Biden forced the ouster of prosecutor Shokin. Mr Holmes' testimony may also have violated rules around classified and privileged communications, but since Donald Trump is the target, that's OK with Adam Schiff and the other Dumbocrats on the HIC.

That's enough drivel for this week. Enjoy your weekend.

Televised impeachment hearings? I'll make the popcorn!

The Morning Mishap says the House of Representatives has decided to endorse a resolution that formalizes the impeachment witch hunt ["inquiry", shurely! Ed.] against Still-President Trump, who stands accused of improperly exerting political influence over Ukraine. 196 Republican Congresspersons and two (count `em, 2) Democrats voted against the inquiry; 231 Democrats and 1 Independent voted in favour.

In other news, dozens of young black men (and a few young black women), were stabbed and/or shot, many of them killed, in cities across North America, including Toronto* the Good, during Hallowe'en festivities... or for no particular reason. But I digress.

Getting back to yesterday's vote [Thank you. Ed.]... The two Democrats who voted against the resolution were freshman Congressman Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) and 15-term veteran Collin Peterson (D-MN). Both complained that the secret proceedings so far have been overly partisan -- there's a flash for you! -- and are further dividing the country, as if that was possible. In a statement, the White House called the vote was a violation of due process. "The Democrats want to render a verdict without giving the administration a chance to mount a defence, "the statement read. "That is unfair, unconstitutional, and fundamentally un-American."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to have the impeachment resolution vote following weeks of Republican claims that the inquiry was invalid because the chamber had not voted to formally commence the work. See "How the impeachment process is supposed to work", WWW 24/9/10. The Dumbocrats are in a big hurry to get to the actual vote to impeach before Christmas, so are now setting up what Republican leaders call "a sham process designed to discredit the democratic process."

The procedural rules included in yesterday's resolution lay out how the House Intelligence Committee -- now leading the investigation by deposing diplomats and other officials behind closed doors -- would transition to public hearings. The panel would issue a report and release transcripts of the closed-door interviews it has been conducting with diplomats and other officials with connections to President Trump's interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The prospect of public hearings has Walt salivating at the mouth. [Like you never do that! Ed.] I'm old enough to remember the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. Even for a wee-un, daytime TV was much better then than now! That's Senator McCarthy at the left. Beside him is his aide, (((Roy Cohn))). It was Mr Cohn's queer friendship for his aide (((David Shine))) that made the junior senator from Wisconsin take on the US Army in the first place. The Army won. Senator McCarthy lost.

One can draw a parallel between Senator McCarthy's tactics and those now being employed by the Democrats. The Tydings Committee issued a report stating that Senator McCarthy had imposed "a fraud and a hoax" on the Senate with his unfounded allegations. "Starting with nothing," the report said, "Senator McCarthy plunged headlong forward, desperately seeking to develop some information which, colored with distortion and fanned by a flame of bias, would forestall the day of reckoning."

Walt predicts that the McCarthy witch hunt will pale by comparison with the proceedings the never-Trumpers have planned for us, beginning in about two weeks. I'll make the popcorn.

* Footnote: Not to worry, Hogtowners! Mayor John "Red" Tory and police chief Saunders, himself a member of the "community" most affected by gun violence, has a plan to protect you. Something about building more basketball courts? Errr, no. Toronto, the World-class City (LOL) is, with the permission of Canuck Prime Minister Just In Trudeau, going to ban assault rifles. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Latest dope on the Democrats impeachment inquiry

You're forgiven for wondering if this post is going to be about Adam Schiffty. But he's not the latest dope. Anyway, there's another meaning to the word. "Dope" can mean "information" or, possibly, "news". Since "Media impeachment frenzy continues, Walt waits for real news" (WWW 3/10/19), I haven't written much about the Democrats' impeachment inquiry -- there's no point pretending that this is a bipartisan exercise -- because, frankly, there's not a lot going on, and what there is is pretty thin gruel.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence [sic] Chairman Adam Schiff have been handing out subpoenas [subpoenae? Ed.] like cookies. Some White House staffers, past and present, have refused to appear. Those who have obeyed the subpoena have had no direct knowledge of what was said in the now infamous telephone call between Still-President Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. Their testimony amounts to "My second cousin has a friend who knows somebody in the White House who hinted off the record that..."

That is set to change today when Alexander Vindman, a US Army lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq and, later, as a diplomat, will testify. According to AP, Lt-Col. Vindman will say that he raised concerns, twice, over the Trump administration's push to have the Ukrainian government investigate Old Joe Biden and his sprog Hunter, and the Democrats in general.

What makes Lt-Col. Vindman's testimony potentially more telling is that he will say that he actually listened to President Trump's July 25th telephone conversation with President Zelensky and reported his concerns to the lead counsel of the National Security Council. AP quotes from a copy of his prepared testimony: "I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the US government's support of Ukraine."

Apparently Lt-Col. Vindman was "concerned" even before he listened in to the inter-presidential phone call. He took Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, to task follwing a July 10th meeting -- note the date -- in which Ambassador Sondland stressed the importance of having Ukraine investigate the 2016 election as well as Burisma, a company linked to the Biden family. Again according to AP, Lt-Col. Vindman told Ambassador Sondland that "his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push."

So. No pro-Biden or anti-Trump bias there. Nevertheless, the Dumbocrats and the (((controlled media))) are portraying Lt-Col. Vindman as a key witness. However close to the events he may have been, Lt-Col. Vindman is expected to testify that he is not the whistleblower, the still unnamed government official who filed the initial complaint over the telephone conversation that sparked the House impeachment inquiry. Who is the whistleblower? Lt-Col. Vindman will say he doesn't have a clue.

Meanwhile, under pressure to move beyond the first small step towards impeachment (see "How the impeachment process is supposed to work", WWW 24/9/19), Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that the House will vote on Thursday on a resolution to affirm the impeachment investigation, set rules for public hearings and outline the potential process for writing articles of impeachment. The vote is potentially much more interesting than Lt-Col. Vindman's testimony, because for the first time Congresspersons will have to go on the record as to whether they are in favour of impeaching Still-President Trump. I'll be watching to see which Republicans are "for", and which Democrats are "against". Stay tuned.

What 's in the "Ukrainian phone calls" that warrants impeachment?

Short answer: Nothing!

Walt's longer answer begings with this quote from "How the impeachment process is supposed to work" (WWW 24/9/19): In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.

Q. What kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" do the Dumbocrats now say Still-President Trump has committed?
A. Well, he had a telephone conversation (or two or three) with Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, in which he "solicited interference" in the 2020 election.
Q. What kind of interference?
A. Well, he wanted Mr Zelensky to investigate the business dealings in Ukraine of Old Joe Biden's sprog, Hunter.
Q. And that would be a crime in what way?
A. Well... errr... that would have been for the President's personal gain.
Q. In what way?
A. Well... errrrr....

The key word there is "personal gain". I think what the Founding Fathers had in mind, when they wrote the Constitution, was personal pecuniary gain, of the sort that resulted in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the successor to President U.S. Grant. How President Trump would have gained from an investigation into the affairs of Hunter Biden is less than clear to me, unless they mean that such investigation would have somehow led to Mr Trump's re-election to a second term, which would have earned him another four years making a salary considerably less than he could have earned in speaking fees alone had he not been re-elected.

Ed. I think that is what they mean.
Q. I see. Anything else?
A. Well, yes. He tried to cover up the phone call(s) by "locking down" records of the call(s) in a security system designed to protect state secrets. Doing so posed a serious threat to the security of the Paranoid States of America, and we would never have known about it had a so-far-anonymous whistleblower not made a complaint which Joseph Maguire, the Director of National Intelligence [sic], sat on for a couple of days before sending it to the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the White House.
Q. Where are those records now?
A. Well... errr... they've been declassified and released to the public.

Yesterday, the Chairman of the House Intelligence [sic] Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), grilled Mr Maguire on why he (Maguire) initially withheld a copy of the complaint from lawmakers, choosing to notify the DoJ and White House first. This was wrong, the Dems say, because the President was the subject of the complaint and Attorney General William Barr was mentioned by Mr Trump during the controversial phone call.

Mr Maguire insisted he is "not partisan" and "not political," reminding the panel that he served under eight presidents and has taken the oath of office 11 times. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he and Mr Barr are part of "the cover-up of the cover-up".
Q. Seriously?
A. Very seriously. That's what she told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe today, when he asked if she was concerned that the country's institutions could fail due to Barr's behaviour.

You couldn't make this stuff up. Looks to me like a clear case of the Dumbocrats trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. No. More like trying to make something out of nothing. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told America's Newsroom, "Washington is always a circus, but this is three rings with all the clowns and it's nuts right now."

Further reading: "Andrew Cuomo says 'leftist' Dems pressured Pelosi on impeachment, warns it will go 'nowhere'", by Andrew Shaw, Fox News, 28/9/19.