Is Pelosi Saving Trump By Shaping Impeachment To Fail In The Senate?

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the curious profile of the emerging impeachment against President Donald Trump. Notably, while Democratic members have been saying for three years that there are established crimes and impeachable offenses found by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, reports indicate that none of those allegations will be the basis for impeachment. Instead, Democratic members are saying that they want to limit impeachment to the Ukrainian controversy. Not only that, but they want to hold just a couple weeks of public hearings and vote an impeachment vote. If so, this would be the most narrow and least developed impeachment of a president in our history.

Here is the column:

As President Donald Trump continues to counterpunch his way into an impeachment, many Republicans appear conspicuously and ominously silent about the Ukrainian scandal. That would normally spell growing danger for an increasingly isolated president looking at a Senate trial.

Trump, however, may have a curious ally in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When she held a press conference to announce the impeachment inquiry, some of us expressed doubt that she had dropped her opposition to it. Since then, every move she has made strongly supports suspicions that Pelosi is less of a convert than a collaborator in the House impeachment effort. While Trump aides such as Rudy Giuliani have now caused untold damage to the White House position, Pelosi repeatedly has intervened to steer impeachment efforts into either a wall or, more recently, over a cliff.

For three years, Pelosi has been widely credited with slowing down the impeachment efforts despite many of her fellow Democrats campaigning on an impeachment pledge in 2018. Pelosi has struggled to maintain the appearance of wanting to impeach the president while preventing any meaningful steps toward actual impeachment. She wants Trump mortally wounded but still alive in 2020. Moreover, she understood the Russia investigation was not producing clear criminal or impeachable conduct.

Indeed, earlier this year, I wrote a column exploring whether the real scandal was not likely Russian but Ukrainian in its origins. I noted that various Trump figures, along with Democrats including Hunter Biden, were involved in suspect dealings in Ukraine. The investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy or collusion with the Russians. The Justice Department correctly rejected obstruction. Pelosi moved to put impeachment to bed, saying she would not accept one that was not based on articles with “overwhelming and bipartisan” support.

Everything was going according to plan, until Trump called the Ukrainian president. The danger of pretending that you want to impeach Trump is that you may accidentally stumble over a potentially impeachable offense. Moreover, with a whistleblower complaint, Pelosi lost all her control. The Democratic base was simply not going to accept another bait and switch.

So Pelosi was forced to hold her bizarre press conference to announce that an impeachment inquiry would begin in the House, despite other Democrats declaring for weeks that they already were conducting such an inquiry. Despite her recent pledge, she pushed through an impeachment vote with no support from Republicans, and the country divided right down the middle on the issue. Pelosi then took two unexpected steps.

She reportedly said she wanted to limit any impeachment investigation to Ukraine, not the stuff that she and others claimed was clearly criminal and impeachable for three years. She also removed the investigation from the House Judiciary Committee, which was looking more broadly at Russian matters with special impeachment counsel, and then gave it to the House Intelligence Committee to hold hearings behind closed doors. After single handedly slowing down impeachment efforts for years, Pelosi now is pushing for a quick impeachment vote by the end of the year. Why?

The day this story broke, I stated on air that the greatest threat to Trump would be White House national security adviser John Bolton, a disgruntled former aide who was the most likely witness to have damaging evidence of any quid pro quo. Yet Democrats have done relatively little to get his testimony. Bolton seemed willing to testify but he wanted to be legally compelled to do so. On Friday, his attorney even dangled a promise of “relevant” undisclosed evidence. Democrats have subpoenaed various officials but refused to do so with Bolton. They shrugged off his refusal to testify and said they simply had no time to go to court for an order. Why?

The reason appears to be Pelosi. While she reluctantly agreed to allow members to impeach, she wants to submit an anemic impeachment to the Senate by the start of 2020. After moving for years at a glacial pace, she now wants an abbreviated and expedited impeachment process with just a few weeks of evidentiary preparation. Such an impeachment would go forward with a significantly undeveloped record with a couple of slapdash articles, along with ample room to acquit Trump in the Senate.

The term for all of this is planned, or programmed, obsolescence. The term was created by former General Motors head Alfred Sloan Jr. to refer to products that suddenly stop functioning and have to be replaced. This was the basis of a huge class action lawsuit against Hewlett Packard over inkjet printers and cartridges allegedly designed to shut down at some undisclosed date. The company settled the case for millions of dollars.

Similarly, this impeachment is looking like something designed to fail, to suddenly stop functioning in the Senate so Trump survives and Democrats can once run again on a “lesser of two evils” campaign. The design flaw is found in the artificially narrow foundation of articles on abuse of power. It is not true, as was suggested by former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, that abuse of power cannot be the sole basis for impeachment because abuse of power is not a crime. Not only can abuse of power be impeachable, but a proven quid pro quo can qualify as such an abuse.

However, there is a reason why members of Congress have never sought the impeachment of a president on such a narrow ground. The Clinton impeachment was relatively narrow but involved the president lying under oath, which is a clearly defined criminal act. Abuse of power is stronger in the context of other offenses. The reason is that it is often very difficult to distinguish between the problematic statements or conduct of presidents. All politicians deal in their self interests, including members of Congress.

To focus on this narrow abuse of power claim as the foundation for this impeachment, Pelosi maximizes the chances of acquittal for Trump. By pushing for an impeachment by December, with limited hearings and no compelled testimony by key witnesses, she would achieve her original goal to guarantee that Trump will stay in office at the start of primaries. That is indeed the perfect planned obsolescence product, one designed to fail just in time for the voters to be offered a product “upgrade” in the form of the Democratic presidential candidate and a Senate majority.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He also served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

205 thoughts on “Is Pelosi Saving Trump By Shaping Impeachment To Fail In The Senate?”

        1. Paul:
          You’re too kind, Paul. “Sometimes” as on the timetable of the periodic cicada. Come to think of it, an apt comparison species-wise, too.

          1. I refer you magpies to the facts on Shokin and Trump/Ukraine I have posted numerous times and with links for all at various times. I’m not digging up those links every time one of you repeats the same cult talking points you never source.
            Let’s try this mfers.Challenge me on one fact or source specifically and well see who pulls crap from their a.. or the Federalist – same thing – and who can quote real sources and respected news media.

            1. I refer you magpies to the facts on Shokin and Trump/Ukraine I

              No, you’ve repeated talking points about Shokin convenient to the Democratic Party.

              1. I quoted facts from first person witnesses or reporting from respected news sources like the WSJ, Bloomberg, WaPo, or NYTs.

                Those are the sources the guy who writes the Federalist reads in his pajamas and then turns into palatable opinion for people like you who are unable to think for themselves.

                1. Anon1 – “I quoted facts from first person witnesses or reporting from respected news sources like the WSJ, Bloomberg, WaPo, or NYTs. ” This is your first problem. None of these are respected news sources. Your second problem is you think they were facts when they were really opinions.

                2. WaPo, owned by the richest man on earth Jeff Bezos. NOW THAT’s what Anon1 calls “reliable!” Cow-towing to the richest and most powerful white men extant: Anon1’s favorite hobby!

                  Bezos is in bed with Turkey and the Turkish president. Gee, I wonder why WaPo censors any and every article relative to Bezos business dealings with Turkey?

                  Anon1 has his rules setup like this: quote “reliable” sources or everything you say with which I disagree is an automatic lie. So all this eephing DNC/MSM/elitist troll has to do is claim your news source is “unreliable” and Anon1 automatically wins!

                  Anon1 gets his rules from little Adam “bug eyes” Schiff’s play book.

              2. TIA:
                “No, you’ve repeated talking points about Shokin convenient to the Democratic Party.“
                He is more trained leftist seal leaping at every fish after flapping his appendages on demand than a mouther of current Dim talking points. Amazing how easily he can be summoned on cue like Beetlejuice. Where’s Jim Fowler when you need him?

                1. If mespo had any balls he’d engage on the facts and show everybody that mental superiority he pretends to have.

            2. Let’s try this mfers.Challenge me on one fact…

              🙂 Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if they didn’t fire Shokin.

              Trump’s call transcript with Zelensky has no threat of withholding aid.

              Ready. Go.

    1. Why don’t you quote from news sources and make your own arguments? It’s called thinking for yourself. Based on what you do post, you’d benefit by learning what is actually going on

      1. PS You understand that Thew Federalist, National Review, and Daily Caller have no reporters right (DC might have a few hanging around in the comfort of Congress and the WH)? You’re posting 3rd hand thoughts of people with no more access than you or I.

        1. VP Joe Biden flew for 15 hours to Asia with son/coke head Hunter (military discharged Hunter for illegal drug abuse). Hunter flew to China to meet with Chinese industrialists, who gave Hunter’s law firm $1.5B.

          Joe says he never spoke with Hunter about Hunter’s business dealings with China on the jet.

          Anon1 believes Joe.

          Anon1 is a liar himself, stupid as dirt, a DNC progressive troll/enabler, and/or some combination of the above.

          I rest my case.

  1. “I noted that various Trump figures, along with Democrats including Hunter Biden, were involved in suspect dealings in Ukraine. The investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy or collusion with the Russians.”

    You could have left his passage outmatches and then one MIGHT have been able to say you weren’t a Republican troll, but you couldn’t help yourself, professor.

    You used to have a leg to stand on, but with each one of these idiotic, factless diatribes, whether surrounded by actual, cogent arguments or not, you debase yourself and your reputation.

    Cue the “but what about”-ers.

  2. Gee ol’ Snorty Hunter Biden took down a cool $700K from a Rosemont Seneca Bohai paid from Burisma Holdings accounts. So much for he didn’t get anything from the $1.5 Billion from the Bank of China investment.

    “Over the 17-month period that Hunter made the $708,302, Rosemont Seneca Bohai took a 20% stake in Bohai Harvest RST (BHR)- a Chinese private equity firm with close ties to the Bank of China that Hunter Biden has sat on the board of since inception in 2013, and has vowed to resign from by the end of October.

    This is where the $1.5 billion billion figure comes from; the amount BHR aimed to raise in 2014 – which was announced two weeks after Joe and Hunter Biden flew to China together on Air Force Two.”

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

  3. “Is Pelosi Saving Trump By Shaping Impeachment To Fail In The Senate?”
    You know Leftist ain’t to bright, right?
    Seems they are doing everything they can, from impeachment to presidential candidates, to reassure Trumps second term. But then, maybe that is their goal, to keep the country distracted and divided until 2024.



    On Friday, House investigators released the transcript of the former National Security Council official Fiona Hill’s testimony from last month. It showed a Republican staff member trying and failing to get Hill to concede that there might be some validity to the conspiracy theories underlying Donald Trump’s demands of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

    “Are you familiar with the, you know, the allegation about Serhiy Leshchenko?” asked the Republican aide, Steve Castor. He added, “You know, relating to publicizing Manafort’s role in the Ukraine?”

    Leshchenko is a former member of Parliament in Ukraine and probably the most famous investigative journalist in the country. He helped expose the so-called black ledger that listed $12.7 million in secret payments to Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, from his client Viktor Yanukovych, the wildly corrupt Russian-aligned oligarch who ruled Ukraine until 2014. Manafort is in federal prison in part for failing to disclose or pay taxes on the millions he sucked out of Ukraine. Nevertheless, to make Trump’s demands of Zelensky seem just and rational, some Republicans have started painting Manafort as the victim of Leshchenko’s plotting.

    Hill, a Russia expert and co-author of a psychological study of Vladimir Putin, tried to shut down this line of questioning. “The Ukrainian government did not interfere in the U.S. election,” she said, adding, “The Ukrainian Special Services also did not interfere in our election.” As the Republican questions continued, Hill seems to have grown almost indignant. “I’m really worried about these conspiracy theories, and I’m worried that all of you are going to go down a rabbit hole, you know, looking for things that are not going to be at all helpful to the American people or to our future election in 2020,” she said.

    On Saturday, Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, sent the committee’s chairman, Adam Schiff, a list of people Republicans want to call to testify. To understand the significance of some of the names, you’d have to plunge into the very rabbit holes Hill warned of. Luckily, Nunes made his intention clear, writing of Trump’s “documented belief that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election,” which “forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances surrounding the election.”

    The conspiracy theories that undergird the president’s “documented belief” aren’t really coherent, but they don’t have to be to serve their purpose, which is sowing confusion about the well-established fact that Russia assisted Trump’s campaign. They posit not just that Manafort was set up, but also that Democrats worked with Ukraine to frame Russia for hacking Democrats’ emails, a dastardly Democratic plot that led to Trump’s election. Naturally, George Soros, perennial scapegoat for the far right, is also involved.

    Some of these lies seem to have originated in Russia; documents from the Mueller investigation recently obtained by BuzzFeed News show that Manafort was blaming Ukraine for the Democratic National Committee hack back in 2016, a story he apparently got from one of his associates, a former Russian intelligence officer named Konstantin Kilimnik. (Hill testified that she’d encountered Kilimnik in a previous job, and “all of my staff thought he was a Russian spy.”)

    A few of Trump’s more responsible aides have reportedly tried to disabuse him of Ukraine conspiracy theories, to no avail. Instead it appears that House Republicans, out of slavish fealty to the president, are going to use high-profile hearings to amplify them.

    Edited from: “To Exonerate Trump, Republicans Embrace Russian Style Disinformation”

    The New York Times, 11/11/19


      How much do the trolls earn? I want to be hired and do what they do. Doing it for free is no fun.

      Hey Peter help a Ruskie out.


    2. NYT Hill, a Russia expert and co-author of a psychological study of Vladimir Putin, tried to shut down this line of questioning. “The Ukrainian government did not interfere in the U.S. election,”……Hill seems to have grown almost indignant. “I’m really worried about these conspiracy theories….

      …Lying NYT, an oxyMORON

      Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

      Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


      Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

    3. Peter – well, the NYT is pulling out the big guns in defense of the impeachment.

        1. this is about a lot more than Hunter Biden.

          And just like that, Shill accidentally trips over an opening statement that may lead to his first ever critical thought. Let’s see if he is up to the task.

          But Vindman gave the game away with his prepared testimony. He believes the permanent bureaucracy should reign supreme, and if some elected politician gets crosswise with the solons of the state, then they must act. So he did, as he detailed in his prepared statement and testimony to Congress. From the statement: “In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”

          1. Vindamin’s statement is about the “narrative”, i.e. the facts. that is rightly the concern of experts. Policy is what you do with the facts, and of course to be effective must be based on facts. That’s the main reason why you have experts, though of course others may help formulate policy to be approved or not by the president.

            1. Olly, Anon, Trump was pursuing a debunked conspiracy theory with the intention of taking the heat off Russia.


              not by foot draggers and saboteurs from the CIA and State Dept bureaucracy who are all subordinates of the POTUS anyhow.

              from the cfr:

              “Powers of the President
              The president’s authority in foreign affairs, as in all areas, is rooted in Article II of the Constitution. The charter grants the officeholder the powers to make treaties and appoint ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate (Treaties require approval of two-thirds of senators present. Appointments require consent of a simple majority.)

              Presidents also rely on other clauses to support their foreign policy actions, particularly those that bestow “executive power” and the role of “commander in chief of the army and navy” on the office. From this language springs a wide array of associated or “implied” powers. For instance, from the explicit power to appoint and receive ambassadors flows the implicit authority to recognize foreign governments and conduct diplomacy with other countries generally. From the commander-in-chief clause flow powers to use military force and collect foreign intelligence.

              Presidents also draw on statutory authorities. Congress has passed legislation giving the executive additional authority to act on specific foreign policy issues. For instance, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) authorizes the president to impose economic sanctions on foreign entities.

              Presidents also cite case law to support their claims of authority. In particular, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions—United States. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952)—are touchstones.

              In the first, the court held that President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted within his constitutional authority when he brought charges against the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation for selling arms to Paraguay and Bolivia in violation of federal law. Executive branch attorneys often cite Justice George Sutherland’s expansive interpretation of the president’s foreign affairs powers in that case. The president is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” he wrote on behalf of the court. “He, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing conditions which prevail in foreign countries and especially is this true in time of war,” he wrote.

              In the second case, the court held that President Harry Truman ran afoul of the Constitution when he ordered the seizure of U.S. steel mills during the Korean War. Youngstown is often described by legal scholars as a bookend to Curtiss-Wright since the latter recognizes broad executive authority, whereas the former describes limits on it. Youngstown is cited regularly for Justice Robert Jackson’s three-tiered framework for evaluating presidential power….”

            3. Vindiman’s statement was about outside influence conflicting with interagency consensus on policy. Outside influence is anything not from the interagency body. The President receives foreign policy recommendations and then he decides what policy to pursue.

              Did you know that the experts were also in consensus about whether to launch the space shuttle Challenger? Unfortunately that consensus was based on group think, as 2 experts had facts that were overruled. Kennedy overruled many of his experts, avoiding a group think decision on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sometimes great leaders just lead.

              1. well said OLLY

                this is a transparent illegal coup by elements of the intelligence community and state department bureaucracy. it should be exposed and crushed by whatever means necessary.

                1. this is a transparent illegal coup by elements of the intelligence community and state department bureaucracy. it should be exposed and crushed by whatever means necessary.

                  Absolutely. Once it has been exposed, everyone involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I don’t care one wit about the instability this exposure and pursuit of justice will have on this country or the rest of the world. We cannot have a technocracy and pretend it’s a constitutional republic.

                  1. Olly, your quote from above on “the narrative” was about facts – that’s what a narrative is – not policy. Of course experts should voice spotting BS when they see it. There are also experts on policy, and of course the President can and should overrule them as he sees fit, though we would hope not ignorantly or as in Trump’s case, corruptly.

                    What you call the Deep State are the thousands of career civil servants, hired on the basis of qualifications, not who their Daddy or ward boss is. That patronage and nepotism system is what preceded our current system. Look up Boss Tweed. That’s what you want?

          1. Paul, that’s what Trump wants you to think. He was trying to intimidate Ukriane so they’d make peace with Russia on Putin’s terms.

            1. Ukraine was part of the Russian orbit for centuries. It’s on the Russian border. It was part of the USSR. its quasi autonomous posture within the USSR was fiction.

              it’s contiguous location along the Russian western perimeter makes it very much inside the Russian sphere of influence even today in spite of NATO expansion and various other bad destabilizing strategies pursued by foreign policy and defense wonks who have no fear of nuclear war

              we should fear nuclear war. your icon daniel ellsberg and famed “whistleblower” does .

            2. Peter – he sold the Ukrainians Javelin missiles. All Obama did was sell them soft goods and MREs. I think you are 180 degrees of.

                1. There was no reason to hold up aid.

                  Come on Shill, none whatsoever? Ukraine was under new leadership. There is evidence to suggest people within the Ukrainian government had been involved in activities to influence the 2016 election. Those activities allegedly involved coordination with officials within the US government, political parties and political campaigns. These are exactly the same allegations that inspired the 2.5 year Mueller investigation.

                  Is it reasonable for the President to communicate our concerns with the Ukraine President? Does the President have a duty to make sure our taxpayer funded aid is not being delivered to corrupt entities? Should our President challenge foreign leaders to investigate and then terminate interference in our election process?

                  1. Olly, if the hold up was so ‘reasonable’, then Trump surely could have included the State Department in his efforts. He didn’t need to bypass the State Department while sending his perennial lawyer as an envoy. Guiliani didn’t even have proper security clearance to be conducting diplomacy.

                    1. Peter – the President has the final say on security clearances. If he says someone can conduct diplomacy, they can.

                    2. The State Department works for him, not the other way around. If he has national security concerns regarding Ukraine that may involve those at state, he’d be foolish to include them. Regardless, it’s within his authority to involve who he believes is necessary and he has the power to clear who he needs.

                      Now try and be honest for once and answer my last two questions in that paragraph.

                    3. Paul, no legitimate president has the right to ignore the Security Clearance process. And why would we ‘want’ a president ignoring basic Security???

                      Paul, I spent a lot of time with cops. Too much time, in fact! They’re not the coolest company. Anyway– The idea of a president just ignoring Security Clearances should be grounds for impeachment in itself. No police force run by professionals tolerates backdoor passes.

                    4. Peter – the President is the final say on security clearances. He doesn’t ignore them, but if he says that someone has clearance for a mission, they do.

                    5. No, Paul. The President doesn’t have special authority to ignore Security protocols. I don’t know where you get that or ‘why’ it should be tolerated.

                      Rudolph Giuliani was working for Trump. Not the U.S. Government but Trump and Trump only.

                      But the abuse goes even further. Giuliani’s regular job is high power lobbying to foreign governments. So it’s a conflict of interest for him to be representing Trump as a Special Envoy. Especially when he’s going behind the State Department’s back.

                    6. Peter – read this

                      Secrecy News
                      Security Clearances and Presidential Authority
                      Posted on Nov.18, 2016 in Security Clearances by Steven Aftergood
                      “Security clearances are not mandated for the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, or other constitutional officers,” a recent Congressional Research Service report explains. “The criteria for election or appointment to these positions are specified in the U.S. Constitution, and except by constitutional amendment, no additional criteria (e.g., holding a security clearance) may be required.”

                      In fact, the security clearance system itself is an expression of presidential authority. Its scope and operation are defined in an executive order (EO 12968), and its terms can be modified by the President at will.

                      And if the President wished to grant access to classified information to a family member, for example, there would be no legal barrier to doing so. See “Trump Will Have Wide Latitude to Let Family Into Government’s Secret Circles” by Mark Landler, New York Times, November 16.

                    7. Paul:

                      “Peter – read this:”
                      It’s not John Burgoyne’s/Peter’s fault. He can’t read with any comprehension at all as I’ve found out the hard way. I’d cut back on the pearl casting IIWY.

                    8. If mespo ever challenges facts or makes a factual point, please y’all. highlight it. I have to see that.

                      John/Peter repeatedly posts reporting and discussion of facts while mespo – who, judging from his few past attempts doesn’t know any – sits in the peanut gallery acting like a 3rd grader pretending to be in 6th.

            3. Your philosophy is pathetic and limp, likely a reflection of yourself.

              Borders change. Nations disappear and arise all the time. It’s very natural. Get used to it. Your outrage is misplaced and phony.

    4. Russia, Russia, Russia. Trust me, when we embrace Russian methods, you will know for sure. Not there quite yet, but keep on pushing, it will help quicken the day.

  5. Notice how “Russian collusion” went from being mentioned myriad times on the news, to never? They were so sure it was true. Confidently declared he was a traitor. Democrats then faithfully got amnesia. Russian collusion is out. They threw it on the pile with all the other false allegations, and dutifully accepted the next one, hook, line, and sinker.

    Now, it’s Ukraine. But then that pesky transcript got released, which undermines their allegations. They’re already warming up the next one to replace Ukraine, which was that he leaked the whistleblower through his son. Of course, they’re going to need something to replace that, since his son released the name after Schiff and several news sites did. Hmm, wonder what coup attempt #14 will be?

    Does all this amnesia cause memory loss? It’s like fast fashion. A new style every 2 weeks, made cheaply off the backs of sweatshop workers, and fragments under pressure.

    1. Karen, you only perceive that ‘Russian collusion’ disappeared because you’re in the rightwing media bubble. When Trump abandoned the Kurds in Syria, many columnists in mainstream media were quick to note that Putin was the biggest beneficiary.

      1. When Trump abandoned the Kurds in Syria, many columnists in mainstream media were quick to note that Putin was the biggest beneficiary.

        I’d say Turkey followed by Assad and then the US and lastly the Russians but then again I understand the situation.

        1. Mespo, you have no understanding. How pretentious to claim you do.

          The Assad regime of Syria has been a ‘client’ of Russia going back to Soviet times. Syria, under the Assad’s, has been Russia’s key naval base on the Mediterranean since the 1970’s.

          Until Trump abandoned the Kurds a few weeks back, it was not the least bit clear that Assad would ever rule all of Syria again. But since Trump sold-out, Assad now stands a much better chance of reestablishing control over the whole country.

          When Trump abandoned the Kurds, mainstream media ran a story from Russian television. It featured videos shot by Russian troops at a freshly abandoned U.S. base. In other words, the Russians were taking over a base that we built. But Mespo claims there was ‘no gain for Russia’..???

          Although it’s a NATO country, Turkey recently purchased a missile defense system from Russia; a move unheard of among NATO partners. So only a fool would argue that Syria wasn’t a big win for Russia.

          1. John Burgoyne:

            “So only a fool would argue that Syria wasn’t a big win for Russia.”
            And had you said that originally you wouldn’t look like an illiterate now. What you said was that some unnamed pundits you cite with approval said that “Putin was the biggest beneficiary.” You will note I never said it wasn’t a win for Russia (like that matters when it’s in our interests, too) but that it was a bigger win for others including us. Words do mean things, John.

            Next time I’ll put it on flash cards for you.

            1. Mespo, you fancy yourself as a whiz-bang with snarky comments. But you aren’t even good at that. It’s just humor that plays only among Trumpers.

              Abandoning the Kurds was hardly ‘in our interest’. It will be a long time before potential allies forget how we sold the Kurds out. And it’s not like our troops are coming home. Instead they’ve been transferred to guard an oil field that presumably belongs to the Syrians; whoever that might be at this point.

              And if you’re arguing Putin didn’t benefit by our abandonment, you’re totally disingenuous. Russia is now the main power in Syria. Whereas we were controlling a third of the country with just 1,500 troops. Our alliance with the Kurds made that possible. But Trump just frittered away. Syria was, in fact, one of Trump’s only foreign policy triumphs. It ain’t anymore.

              1. John Burgoyne:
                “And if you’re arguing Putin didn’t benefit by our abandonment, you’re totally disingenuous.”
                Still having trouble reading with comprehension, I see. Get the ESL class over with and we’ll talk. Ask the nice lady at the head of the room to distinguish big, bigger and biggest for you. Then maybe you can get the intellectual honesty thingy down.

                BTW the foregoing is snark, not pointing out that you completely misrepresented my argument thus proving my original thought that you have no understanding of the situation or the strategic thinking going on well above your pay grade. You wanna attack but you look like Wiley Coyote doing it. Meep, meep.

                  1. Kurtz, nothing John wrote is illogical or exhibits the 3rd grade put down attempts of you and the other pretend lawyer on this site. I hope you’re pretend, because as real lawyers, you demonstrate zero ability to engage on the facts with an opponent running rings around you while you clown for the kids on the bus.

                    Show some pride. We know mespo has none.

              2. Mespo is not capable of arguing factual points John. When he tries, he embarrasses himself, since like most of the Trump cultists, he avoids news sources and prefers bias confirmation. In short, he doesn’t know anything.

                1. Like mother hen, Anon feels compelled again and again to give Peter a lifeline to rescue his dumb azz.


                2. actually he aced him out in every reply. you expose your own ignorance again if you continue to fail to grasp the strategic situation there which Trump wisely recognized.

                  how does it feel that the object of your hate was so much smarter than you?

                  the pullout of Syria was a timely and proper response. but, no good deed goes unpunished with you guys

              3. “t will be a long time before potential allies forget how we sold the Kurds out”

                Grow up Peter. Are you still fussing about how the US pulled out of Vietnam and “abandoned our allies” the South Vietnamese, the Hmong, and the Montagnards? I doubt it.

                The Kurds are not a state. By contrast Turkey is a state, with a neary century old beef with the Kurds, and Turkey is a NATO ally. They were invading. We had to clear out. No choice but go to war with a NATO ally. Bad idea. Wake up!

                as for Russia they got he US in a pincer there. Pull out, Russian advantage, sure. But either go to war or exert too much pressure on Turkey, Turkey could leave NATO, even bigger Russian advantage.

                Instead Trump did the logical thing and pulled out, and lets Turkey handle its own border matters,

                You guys think the US has a better strategic position against Russia in some places than it really does. By “You guys” i mean the warmongers in both parties. tell us, how did you get to be a war monger? Was it just Hillary’s malign influence over you, or have you been a fan of interventionism since LBJ?

          2. Why do you think NATO members purchasing military equipment from each other is unheard of? It’s quite common. We also sell military equipment to non NATO allies, ourselves.

          3. I wish mental case war mongers like yourself would list one case where a US regime change war (illegal undeclared war) worked to benefit the US and its citizens, but you can not because no such thing exists, yet you keep acting and typing as if it does, hence proving you are indeed just a common mental case, someone who benefits financially from war, a blood thirsty war monger, or combination thereof.

      2. John – you ignored my comments about the Kurds when you first brought this up. Do you want the US to declare war on Syria, Turkey, and Russia, simultaneously? Because Syria is working with Russia and Turkey to stop the Kurdish separatist movement.

        This is a weighty decision. You can say you want to help the Kurds, and I agree. But what do you want? Russia announced it would engage in military action in Syria with their permission. To fight the Russians would require an act of war against Russia, Syria, and Turkey. Are you willing to do that?

        Of course Russia is delighted if we do not enage in military combat with them. We’d destroy them. Does that mean that Trump is a Russian asset if he does not declare war on Russia, without an Act of Congress?

        As I pointed out to you earlier, if Congress wants military action, it can get it by declaring war. Ironically, Democrats complain that Trump did not engage in military action without Congress’s Approval. That makes no sense, and so is obviously just political warfare.

        The Russian collusion story is dead. Even Rachel Maddow was remonstrated to let it go.

      3. I neglected to address your false statement that I’m in a “right wing media bubble.” Actually, I addressed the accusation that Trump’s actions benefited Putin in my early address to you days ago.

        As I’ve told you before, you should receive news from a variety of sources to get a full picture, as well as to understand Leftist bias. I know the Russian collusion 2016 election story is dead because when I tune in to other stories, or read various papers, I don’t see it anywhere near the frantic, constant frequency it used to enjoy. We see new accusations, and the old abandoned.

      4. John or Peter, are you suggesting war with Syria, Turkey, and Russia? You say nonsensical things, like our military engagement in Syria would not result in any loss of life.

        We are at the point that it would be war. If you want a war, then there is a process for that. Congress.

        You appear to be complaining that Trump did not engage in military action against 3 countries without Congressional approval. I would have expected this in the reverse.

        What does “help the Kurds” mean, exactly? The Kurds were promised their own country in 1920, but the deal was reneged upon. Syria was given that land, and they will not hand it over to the Turks. Its neighbors Iraq and Turkey won’t give the Kurds land, either. The United States won’t hadn’t over one of our states to create an autonomous country for the Kurds, and we weren’t part of that 1920 deal, anyway. Great Britain and France told the Kurds they could have their own country, but did not follow through. Great Britain and France are not going to give the Kurds their own land for an autonomous country.

        The Kurds don’t have the numbers or military force to take Syrian land by force. They got screwed almost a hundred years ago. It was a promise that wasn’t kept. Is modern day Syria liable for a promise broken by Great Britain and France?

        No one will willingly give up land to the Kurds for their own country, which they would never be able to hold.

        OK, so the reality is unfair. What is the solution? The only thing I can think of is for the Kurds to leave, and make new lives in other countries, or to accept the rule of Syria. The Kurds are Muslim. Their religion is usually Sunni, so they share religion with most of the Middle East, but have different cultural traditions, dress, and even dance. (I’ve seen Kurdish dances.)

        That’s the reality. They are not going to get their own homeland if they lack sufficient force to take it. They will not be able to convince the rest of the world to engage in WWIII to give them land, but if the fighting continues, perhaps yet another genocide will do it. I wish to avoid a genocide, and another world war.

        So the solution is to get the Kurds and the Syrians to live in peace and acceptance, as Syrian citizens, or for the Kurds to emigrate to another country, again, whose rule they would have to accept. The persecution fo the Kurds would have to end, in Syria and Turkey and Iran and Iraq. It seems like every country has tried to wipe them out at some point. If the persecution of the Kurds ended, perhaps so would the separatist movement.

        “The Kurds, a group of approximately 18 million people, are the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East. Occupying a region of 500,000 square miles in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the USSR, the Kurds are one of the most persecuted minorities of our time. Nowhere is their future more threatened than in Turkey where Kurds are one quarter of the population. Since World War I, Kurds in Turkey have been the victims of persistent assaults on their ethnic, cultural, religious identity and economic and political status by successive Turkish governments.

        With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the allies created the modern Middle-East. And while the Treaty of Sevres provided for an independent Kurdistan, it was never ratified. In 1923 the treaty of Lausanne created the modern states of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, but Kurdistan was ignored. During Turkey’s war for independence, Turkish leaders, promised Kurds a Turkish-Kurdish federated state in return for their assistance in the war. After independence was achieved, however, they ignored the bargain they had made.

        Months after the declaration of a Turkish republic, Ankara, under the pretext of creating an “indivisible nation,” adopted an ideology aimed at eliminating, both physically and culturally, non-Turkish elements within the Republic. These “elements” were primarily Kurdish and Armenian.

        A 1924 mandate forbade Kurdish schools, organizations and publications. Even the words “Kurd” and “Kurdistan” were outlawed, making any written or spoken acknowledgement of their existence illegal.

        According to Association France-Kurdistan, between 1925 and 1939, 1.5 million Kurds, a third of the population, were deported and massacred.

        In 1930 the Turkish Minister of Justice declared, I won’t hide my feelings. The Turk is the only lord, the only master of this country. Those who are not of pure Turkish origin will have only one right in Turkey: the right to be servants and slaves.

        While Kurdish persecution became more selective during World War II, largely restricted to Kurdish intellectuals, the overall policy in Turkey has remained consistent. This stranglehold is reflected in Kurdish literature. In this century only about a dozen works have been produced in Kurdish. The authors have usually received prison sentences.

        Evidence indicates that Kurdish provinces in Turkey are deliberately and consistently underdeveloped.”

    2. Karen with more lies:

      ““The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller said. But: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not…….

      We investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation,” he said. “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”….

      Director Mueller,” Nadler asked, “the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?”

      “Correct,” Mueller replied. “That is not what the report said.”….

      “So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.

      “That is correct,” Mueller replied.

      “And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued.

      “No,” Mueller said.

      “Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.

      “Yes,” Mueller replied….”

      1. Again, you fancy we should investigate the president for obstructing Weissmann’s obstruction investigation (even though copious documentation was provided these Javerts). It’s another indication, in case we needed one, of what a fraud this whole affair has been.

    1. well in terms of electronic surveillance, we are way past Orwell’s 1984. that’s for sure.

      Huxley wrote “brave new world” and that one is coming too, from test tube babies to a narcotized population, it’s already in its infancy

  6. Whatever you do, please don’t mention the name of C——–a in vain. His name is a holy one to the left. In fact, the left feels a deep, true religion, like never seen before. And they have a new prophet: the holy, righteous, anointed one, whom may only be spoken of with deep reverence and silent, humble prayer. His holy name, C——–a, shall not be taken in vain. To some, he may be a mere mortal, a GS-13 CIA analyst, age 33, 5’3 height, 143 lbs. weight, slight build, brown eyed and dark-haired, bearded, male, with size 8 shoe size, largely subsiding on genetically modified soy-based products. But to the devout, pious, spiritual, sanctified, righteous and blessed left, he is a guiding light, bringing the resonant, glorious eternal truth to mankind. With C——–a in our hearts, they say, we shall be set free, our cups runneth over, and Shirley Goodman and Murphy shall follow us for the rest of our lives.

Comments are closed.