What was a real “bomb” at the impeachment hearing? Washington no longer hides its true intentions, speaking openly about them.
The most shocking at the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives so far is not some witness telling about a “smoking gun” that would provide irrefutable evidence of crime. And the point is not that President Trump could – or could not – ask the Ukrainians to figure out business deals between the son of the then Vice President Biden and one Ukrainian oligarch.
In fact, the most shocking thing about these hearings so far is the confirmation that – no matter who the president of the United States is – the “permanent government” will not allow changes in aggressive interventionist foreign policy, especially when it comes to Russia.
And even more shocking is the fact that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are bothered!
Take, for example, Lt. Col. Windman, who was praised by the mainstream media. He did not provide any direct evidence that President Trump committed any “serious crimes” or “misconduct”. He only complained about the president because he was worried that Trump was pulling US policy away from giving the Ukrainian government offensive weapons!
Windman didn’t even think that the US president has the right to suspend assistance to Ukraine, because he (Windman) supported the idea of helping Ukraine.
According to his own testimony, Windman was worried that “influentials promoted a false narrative about Ukraine, which is incompatible with the consensus views of the interagency community.”
The “consensus views of the interagency community” is another name for the “deep state.”
Windman continued: “While my colleagues in the interagency community and I were increasingly optimistic about the prospects for Ukraine, this alternative narrative undermined the efforts of the US government to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”
Let it all settle for a second: Windman was not a witness to any crimes, he simply did not believe that the legitimately elected US president had the right to amend the US policy regarding Ukraine or Russia!
Similarly, his chief at the National Security Council, Fiona Hill, sounded more like she, with her heated rhetoric from the Cold War, had just left the 1950s. Referring to the controversial 2017 Evaluation of the Intelligence Community, compiled by “hand-selected” analysts of the then CIA director John Brennan, she argued that “President Putin and Russian security services are committed to confronting US foreign policy objectives in Europe, including Ukraine.”
And who will decide what the US foreign policy tasks are in Europe? Not the president of the United States, says government official Fiona Hill. Indeed, Hill told Congress that “if the president or anyone else is obstructing this or undermining the national security of the United States in order to advance domestic or personal interests, then this is more than worthy of your attention.”
And who was the boss of Fiona Hill before? Yes, a former national security adviser, John Bolton, who, no doubt, agrees that the president has no right to change US foreign policy. Bolton is the one who “clarified”: when Trump said that US troops would return home, it really meant that they should stay where they were.
One by one, the “witnesses,” parading in front of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Schiff, sang, peering into the same songbook. As the U.S. ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, said, “In July and August 2019, we learned that the White House has suspended the provision of security assistance to Ukraine. I was categorically against any suspension of assistance, since the Ukrainians needed these funds to fight Russian aggression.”
Meanwhile, by prolonging the operation of the Patriotic Act, both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly voted to continue to spy on all of us. The real bipartisan philosophy in Washington is authoritarianism.
Author – Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul – American politician. Former member of the House of Representatives from the Republican Party of the United States. Member of the Tea Party Movement.
He participated in the presidential election in 1988 as a candidate from the Libertarian Party. Before the 2008 elections, until June 12, he was a candidate for the nomination of candidates for the presidency of the United States from the Republican Party. May 13, 2011 officially announced that he will fight for the nomination of candidates from the Republican Party of the United States in the election of the US President in 2012.