The House Intelligence Committee has heard testimony from several people — national security officials and diplomats — supportive or not of the interpretation that President Donald Trump conditioned military aid to Ukraine on the opening of an investigation against Hunter Biden’s company, Burisma Holdings, Ltd. (Hunter Biden is, of course, the son of former Vice President Joseph Biden.)

As the Republican members of the committee ably pointed out, none of these witnesses had direct proof the president had “bribed” or “extorted” Ukrainian officials to get an investigation of Burisma. The most celebrated witnesses, from the Democrat point of view, were (1) Fiona Hill, an NSC official and daughter of a British coal miner who attended university in the Soviet Union; (2) Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Soviet-born U.S. military official; (3) EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who changed his interpretation of the president’s actions after leftists organized threats to his hotel business; and (4) David Holmes, a State Department bureaucrat who “righteously” reported overhearing an embarrassing phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland; — a kind of testimony as discreditable in its telling as all tattletale.

Congressman Will Hurd (R-Texas) impressed some non-partisan observers by saying that all the witness testimony — if taken at face value — failed to prove bribery or extortion. The president’s actions were irregular, unfortunate and messy, of course; but everyone is familiar by now with Trump’s style of governance.

If one spends time listening to Rudy Giuliani, however, a darker idea of the witness testimony comes into focus. Ukraine is a place where nearly all officials are corrupt, and the corruption is not strictly limited to Ukrainian officials. Furthermore, American diplomats in Ukraine are responsible for overseeing the way U.S. aid is used — to prevent embezzlement. This assigned task in itself requires an almost superhuman integrity and uprightness. We should not be too surprised if reports from the Ukrainian side suggest that the embezzlers of U.S. aid shared their booty in the form of kickbacks to America’s financial-aid overseers at the U.S. Embassy. In fact, Giuliani claims that he has Ukrainian witnesses who can provide damning counter-testimony to the Democrats’ narrative; — but the United States Embassy in Ukraine has blocked their visa applications so they cannot travel to the U.S. and testify.

All of this, of course, is related to the pre-existing Trump-Russia collusion allegations. As President Trump’s lawyer, Giuliani went to Ukraine looking for exculpatory evidence. He was not running a “separate channel of U.S. policy.” Lawyers are allowed to investigate matters on behalf of their clients, even if their client is the president. Is it messy? Yes. The personal interests of heads of state are, by the nature of the thing, often intertwined with the national interest. These interests cannot always be disentangled. To say that a president acts in his own personal interest when he seeks to investigate a rival is not proof of wrongdoing. It is proof that ours is a system of checks and balances in which countervailing interests keep each other in check. In other words, this is a process our Founding Fathers favored and built into the Constitutional system.

The dangerous precedent of the Democrat impeachment maneuver is found in their claim that any check on them — any investigation into their corruption — is itself a crime. If the public accepted their premise, we would not be a free country for long. In that case, honesty itself would be criminalized. The only possible whistleblower, then, would be the whistleblower whose testimony kills an investigation. Such is the case for impeachment.

This brings us to an obvious point: If Joe Biden is innocent of wrongdoing in halting the investigation into Burisma, what do the Democrats have to fear? Shouldn’t they welcome the chance to exonerate their man? But no, they characterize any effort to renew the investigation as criminal. Concern that Joe Biden misused his power is no concern at all. It is “a conspiracy theory.”

The President of the United States doesn’t have to be nice to the President of Ukraine. The President of Ukraine doesn’t have to do “the right thing.” The negotiation that may or may not lie between one thing and the other is not a criminal transaction. It cannot be criminal. But take a look at the following video:

If this doesn’t raise serious questions, then nothing does. It cannot be a crime for the president to seek answers in this matter — even if Joe Biden is running against him.

If it is criminal to seek an investigation of Burisma, then what are we to make of President Obama’s investigations into candidate Donald Trump?

We must uphold our system of checks and balances.

21 thoughts on “A Brief Comment on the Hearings of the House Intelligence Committee

  1. Kickbacks are not illegal in any country but the United States. If one refuses to pay kickbacks, no deal. We may soon see if Giuliani was a competitor of Biden.


  2. Jeff

    Just informing you in regards to the Hong Kong District Council and Legislative Council elections, it is a farce. A lot of Hong Kong people are taking to social media warning that the Legislative Council election candidates are members of the Chinese Communist Party and people that are warning about this are being accused of being Pro-Chinese Communist Party.

    Jeff can I have your opinion regarding this?

    Also in page in the 2047 or Now and 2047 or Now V1 PDF, I forgot to fix a small error in page 19:

    The original sentence is:

    The Author is going to state the elites of Hong Kong which include Property Developer’s,
    Banking Elite, Media Owners and etc are in the control of the Ministry of State Security.

    I forgot to change it to

    The Author is going to state the elites of Hong Kong which include Property Developer’s,
    Banking Elite, Media Owners and etc are controlled by the Ministry of State Security.


  3. Jeff

    Not sure if you have seen this, its a interview on RTHK with Martin Lee, he praises the US Congress and Senate for passing the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Bill and he is in favor of the Visa Waiver in the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Bill. By the way we have another confirmation that Martin Lee is a Chinese Communist Party Collaborator, he has ties to the NPC which is the National People’s Congress in China and he was also part of the Basic Law Committee that drafted the Basic Law for Hong Kong which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party

    Jeff can I have your opinion or commentary regarding this?


  4. Jeff

    Just informing you, the Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Movement/Hong Kong Independence Movement mainly the Hong Kong Democratic Party which is collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party has won the Hong Kong elections

    Jeff can I have your opinion regarding this as many local Hong Kong people were on social media saying that voting for the Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Movement/Hong Kong Independence Movement was voting for another movement controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, those that were saying it were basically labelled as ‘Pro-Beijing’ when they are not.


  5. By avoiding unrest and trusting voters to support them, protesters scored a bigger victory than if they had disrupted the polls. They also demonstrated that far from devolving into anarchy, as some on the government side have claimed, the protest movement can — unlike the police, Beijing or the city’s leaders — control when and where the unrest takes place.


  6. RE:

    This is nothing new in other ways, too. 1997 began the countdown to the Millennium, before 9/11 and the PatRiot Act. The Internet became infected with ECHELON, where public university computer labs were staffed with foreign students, who would spy on Americans. Some of these students likely were double agents of China, working for the NSA. Perhaps students with visas from New Zealand would gather data on US students and send it back to NZ, then the Kiwis would give it to the NSA, so that there wouldn’t be any domestic spying. Of course China got the same data; maybe more.


    1. There is little doubt the bill was veto proof; yet Trump should not have signed it under any circumstances. There is no excuse for anyone who puts their name on it. This does not make America great. This bill is a Trojan a Horse, as sure as any. He obligates the country to accept an untold number of refugees from China, a country that could send us spies, criminals — whole units of soldiers dressed as civilians. Perhaps it is mere icing on the cake, with so many Chinese nationals here studying at our universities. It seems only a matter of time before the country is colonized; but then, it is progressively paralyzed in its counterintelligence capabilities, in its defense capabilities, in its awareness of who is against it. A country cannot be so naive, so thoughtless, and survive.


      1. Jeff

        I have been heavily on the belief that the Chinese Communist Party wants the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Bill passed. I have been told by relatives living in Hong Kong that Chinese State Media are praising Trump for signing the Hong King Freedom and Democracy Bill into law.


  7. Jeff

    Not sure if you can offer a commentary in regards to the Hong Kong Protests, Lech Walesa apparently endorses the Hong Kong Independence Movement/Hong Kong Democracy Movement which collaborates actively with the Chinese Communist Party, he is also endorsing the actions of the Hong Kong Protesters:


    1. Lech Walesa has been named by a police official, in a Polish court, as an agent of the Communist secret police. This is controversial to mention, of course. In 1992 I met a leading figure in Fighting Solidarity who explained to me that Walesa was known as an agent of the Communist regime in years past, and that Solidarity itself was infiltrated and taken over by the communists. That is why Fighting Solidarity was formed. Whenever you form an anticommunist group they immediately target the group for infiltration.


  8. Jeff

    Lech Walesa has also stated he is willing to travel Hong Kong as well to fight for Democracy. I have a feeling that the Hong Kong Incident is nothing more than a staged theatre play.

    Lech Walesa was also on a Podcast at the Albert Einstein Institute giving advice to so-called ‘Pro-Democracy Protesters’:

    Lech Walesa stating he is willing to travel to Hong Kong:


  9. Globalists believe that complete and through international integration will ultimately bring World peace. China has the model system of government that Globalists prefer. The competition for World domination is described by the late Dr Malachi Martin, as if effectively limited to by and between, the United States, the European Union, Russia, and oddly enough, the Vatican. I say follow the money. Britannia rules the banking World and controls the largest central banks. As far as the US is concerned, the more terrorists, and gangsters there are on the streets of America, the greater the plausible substantiation for a police state. Both political parties are directed by the same puppet masters. See how quickly and easily they cooperated on this bill, despite the prominent dog and pony show.


  10. President Trump under provision of the USA Freedom Act, just sentenced a convicted terrorist to indefinite imprisonment upon the convict’s completion of his original sentence, because no other country where he holds citizenship will accept him as a deportee. Americans who support that, saw off the branch upon which they sit, as if to embrace Martial Law. Let the Democrats campaign for his release so he will be free to roam the streets of America. Call me paranoid, but tell me that we aren’t being manipulated into wiping our ass with The Bill Of Rights. Just deport the bastard to Club Gitmo.


  11. Jeff

    Not sure if you would be surprised, I have been told by a Hong Kong person on Twitter that the Hong Kong Protesters are coordinated via a forum and a twitter account that is known to be set up by Ministry of State Security agents called LIHKG and they have a presence in social media:

    Jeff, can I have your opinion or commentary regarding this?


  12. By the way, the USA Freedom Act was temporarily extended for six more months. Just try to find more news articles about this. Just try to find the bill for re-authorization.


  13. The story was linked to either or the other day, but now with persistent searching with various key words, the only place I find it now is on a site I never knew existed, and never would have read. I reprint it below, in case this vanishes as well.

    Patriot Act extension concealed in funding bill passed by House Democrats
    By Barry Grey
    21 November 2019
    On Tuesday, House Democrats overwhelmingly voted for a stop-gap government funding bill that includes an unannounced provision, buried in the legislation, averting the expiration of the police state surveillance Patriot Act.

    Coming in the midst of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, based entirely on differences over US foreign policy toward Ukraine and Russia, the extension of the Patriot Act underscores the absence of any democratic content in the Democrats’ opposition to the Trump administration.

    The Patriot Act, passed by a lopsided bipartisan vote in both houses of Congress in October, 2001, following the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington DC, empowers the National Security Agency (NSA), the FBI and other intelligence agencies to engage in mass surveillance of the population in violation of the Bill of Rights.

    The act was scheduled to expire on December 15 of this year. The renewal in the House spending bill extends the law for an additional three months, until March 15, 2020. It includes Section 215, which allows the government to collect metadata without court authorization.

    Section 215 authorizes the NSA to access and analyze bulk logs of Americans’ domestic phone calls. The agency collected 534 million records in 2018, according to an inspector general report.

    The legal sanction for that particular spying system actually expired earlier this year. The Democrats’ short-term spending bill reauthorizes the mass surveillance program for 90 days.

    The same section of the funding bill also extends expiring FBI surveillance powers, including one that permits agents involved in national security cases to get court orders to obtain business records and to follow a wiretapping target who changes phones.

    “Congress should have ended this beleaguered spying program and enacted meaningful surveillance reform a long time ago,” said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It is disappointing that Congress is instead extending spying powers that have repeatedly been used to violate Americans’ privacy rights, and trying to bury this extension in must-pass funding legislation.”

    The so-called “continuing resolution” maintains current federal funding levels through December 20, with the aim of averting a government shutdown at 12:01 a.m. Friday, when a previous continuing resolution passed in September expires. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the Republican-led chamber will pass the measure on Thursday, and various administration officials have stated that Trump will sign it before the midnight deadline.

    The bill passed by a near-party line vote of 231 to 192. Republican opposition—only 12 GOP representatives voted for it—was based not on the extension of the Patriot Act, which has broad bipartisan support, but on the bill’s failure to include an additional $5 billion demanded by the White House for construction of Trump’s border wall with Mexico.

    The Democrats’ claim to oppose money for the wall is fraudulent. The funding measure passed Tuesday places no restriction on ongoing construction and maintains current spending on the reactionary project. Nor does it restrict any other aspects of Trump’s fascistic assault on immigrants, including mass incarceration in concentration camps and record levels of child detention.

    Trump engineered a partial government shutdown last winter over the border wall issue. It ended after 35 days with the passage of a funding bill that failed to grant the level of wall money he demanded. Then, in February, Trump declared a national emergency at the border in order to circumvent Congress and unilaterally shift some $6.1 billion in Pentagon funds from military construction to the border wall. This was in flagrant violation of the Constitution, which reserves the “power of the purse” to Congress.

    The Democrats refused to mount any serious opposition to this assertion of quasi-dictatorial powers. In June, the Democratic-controlled House voted for a Senate bill allocating $4.6 billion to fund Trump’s Gestapo-like war on immigrants. In that vote, the so-called “progressive” block led by New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez played a critical role.

    After meeting privately with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Cortez announced that she might vote for a bill based on the Senate measure. She made no attempt to rally public opposition to the bill and, along with Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley, cast a critical vote in support of a procedural motion to bring the Senate measure to the floor of the House, ensuring its passage. In an empty and cynical gesture, she and her fellow “progressives” voted “no” in the final ballot.

    The following month, the Democrats voted for a bipartisan two-year budget bill authorizing an additional $320 billion in spending, equally divided between the military and domestic programs. The bill included a record $738 billion for the military in the current fiscal year, which began on October 1. It also authorized funds for Pentagon construction projects to replace the sums diverted by Trump to the border wall, effectively sanctioning Trump’s emergency declaration.

    The money authorized in the budget deal can be allocated only if Congress passes 12 separate spending bills covering various departments and agencies. Since only a few of these bills have been passed to date, stop-gap spending measures are required simply to continue federal spending at current levels.

    In voting on Tuesday’s continuing resolution in the House, the so-called “squad”—Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley—were among 10 Democrats who voted “no.” Their show of opposition to the Patriot Act was, however, yet another empty gesture. They know full well that the Democratic Party will join with the Republicans to extend indefinitely the legal fig leaf for mass spying.

    As for Trump’s demand for additional border wall funds, the White House has made clear that if Congress does not approve all the money he wants, he will once again circumvent Congress to divert money from other accounts and direct it to expanding the barrier.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s