Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 6 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

The Real Bombshell of the Impeachment Hearings

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
(# of views)   1 comment
Author 57115
Message Ron Paul
Become a Fan
  (7 fans)

Lt. Colonel Vindman who earned high praise in the mainstream media He did not come forth with first-hand evidence that President Trump had committed any 'high crimes' or 'misdemeanors'
Lt. Colonel Vindman who earned high praise in the mainstream media He did not come forth with first-hand evidence that President Trump had committed any 'high crimes' or 'misdemeanors'
(Image by Mic)
  Details   DMCA

The most shocking thing about the House impeachment hearings to this point is not a "smoking gun" witness providing irrefutable evidence of quid pro quo. It's not that President Trump may or may not have asked the Ukrainians to look into business deals between then-Vice President Biden's son and a Ukrainian oligarch.

The most shocking thing to come out of the hearings thus far is confirmation that no matter who is elected President of the United States, the permanent government will not allow a change in our aggressive interventionist foreign policy, particularly when it comes to Russia.

Even more shocking is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are bothered in the slightest!

Take Lt. Colonel Vindman, who earned high praise in the mainstream media. He did not come forth with first-hand evidence that President Trump had committed any "high crimes" or "misdemeanors." He brought a complaint against the President because he was worried that Trump was shifting US policy away from providing offensive weapons to the Ukrainian government!

He didn't think the US president had the right to suspend aid to Ukraine because he supported providing aid to Ukraine.

According to his testimony, Vindman's was concerned over "influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency."

"Consensus views of the interagency" is another word for "deep state."

Vindman continued, "While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."

Let that sink in for a moment: Vindman did not witness any crimes, he just didn't think the elected President of the United States had any right to change US policy toward Ukraine or Russia!

Likewise, his boss on the National Security Council Staff, Fiona Hill, sounded more like she had just stepped out of the 1950s with her heated Cold War rhetoric. Citing the controversial 2017 "Intelligence Community Assessment" put together by then-CIA director John Brennan's "hand-picked" analysts, she asserted that, "President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter US foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine."

And who gets to decide US foreign policy objectives in Europe? Not the US President, according to government bureaucrat Fiona Hill. In fact, Hill told Congress that, "If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention."

Who was Fiona Hill's boss? Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who no doubt agreed that the president has no right to change US foreign policy. Bolton's the one who "explained" that when Trump said US troops would come home it actually meant troops would stay put.

One by one, the parade of "witnesses" before House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff sang from the same songbook. As US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland put it, "in July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression."

Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans in large majority voted to continue spying on the rest of us by extending the unpatriotic Patriot Act. Authoritarianism is the real bipartisan philosophy in Washington.

 

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Interesting 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Ron Paul Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Ron Paul is a member of the House of Representatives from Texas and a former presidential candidate, for the GOP and also for the Libertarian parties. His latest book is End The Fed

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

U.S. Moving Towards War in Syria

How to End the Tragedy in Gaza

The Real Refugee Problem -- And How To Solve It

Ron Paul's farewell address to Congress

Forget the Russians: It's the Federal Reserve Seeking to Meddle in Our Elections

War Drums for Syria?

Comments Image Post Article Comment and Rate This Article

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.
          

Comment Here:   


You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.
 

Username
Password

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments  Post Comment


Lance Ciepiela

Become a Fan
Author 14196
Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Apr 4, 2008), 53 fans, 58 articles, 147 quicklinks, 4646 comments, 214 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Yes, after 9/11 the American people came under suspicion when an 'alarmed' congress immediately passed The Patriot Act an impulsive bill that eviscerated America's Civil Liberties. #911NeverForget it is "beyond any doubt" that explosives - not plane impacts and fires alone - destroyed the three World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

Submitted on Tuesday, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:42:11 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment