NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:
Dear readers:
Perhaps most of you read and watch mainstream media everyday as your mantra of the day, don’t you? And perhaps your brain is trained to receive and believe as true everything they dictate to you as a daily dose of how things are going in our daily lives – setting up the perspective for you. And because when a lie is repeated over and over, at the end it becomes the true – do you agree? And this thinking applies to the hot issues of the moment in the political arena. And today, the hot issue is the impeachment of Donald Trump. But do you believe that the mainstream media do manipulate your perspective of things, to fulfill some group agenda?
The following two short pieces – written by Paul Craig Roberts and Tyler Durden consecutively – bring you different perspectives of why the impeachment is now in the front burner; but their analyses are opposite to what mainstream media portraits you. By the way, both authors are currently banned from publishing in Facebook. I wonder why. – Marvin Ramírez
Democrats reveal the real purpose of the impeachment investigation
by Paul Craig Roberts
zerohedge
The Democrats know that there is no impeachable offense. What they intend to do is to use the investigation to look into every aspect of Trump’s life and try to make dirt out of things unrelated to his talk with the Ukrainian president. This “impeachment investigation” is a political act to help their candidate win the next presidential election.
Democrats themselves describe it in this way. For example, here is how Rob Kall, the director of one of the progressive Democrat websites, described the purpose of the investigation:
“The idea should be to keep the impeachment going as long as possible, with new testimonies and new releases of disclosures of alleged corruption and treason on a regular basis.
“Looking at impeachment as a process for removing the president is the wrong way of thinking about it. Looking at it as a key that gives access to investigative tools is the smarter, more strategic, way of looking at it.
“Ideally, it will get so bad for Trump that the Republicans will end up putting up someone else to run in the general election.
“But keeping him under investigation, at least through the November election, will increasingly erode the support of both Trump and the Republican party brand, making a Democratic takeover of the Senate and the White House, and an increased control of the House even more likely.”
In other words, it is a political power play
The outcome depends on whether Americans see the impeachment investigation as another orchestrated hoax like Russiagate or whether they fall for the hoax as they initially did with the Russiagate investigation.
The United States does not have a media. It has a propaganda ministry that helps the ruling elites control the explanations that Americans are given. Polls show that Americans have lost confidence in the media. If so, the impeachment investigation will backfire on the Democrats.
The ultimate purpose of the constant attacks on Trump is to teach the American voters that electing a president who is disapproved by the Establishment is futile. The Establishment simply will not permit any change and will frustrate and destroy any president not selected by them as a candidate.
This is the real way so-called “American democracy” works. The establishment guides the selection of the Democrat and Republican candidates. Whichever wins, the Establishment wins. This didn’t happen in Trump’s case, and so he has to be prevented from altering the Establishment’s agendas.
NYTimes ‘outs’ Ukraine-call “whistleblower” as CIA officer
by Tyler Durden
zerohedge
Soon after the Ukraine-gate “whistleblower” complaint was made public, questions about the source’s knowledge and background began to rise, as one former CIA officer noted very specifically:
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?
My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Were outside groups opposed to the president involved?
This complaint will further damage Intelligence Community (IC) relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.
Worst of all, this IC officer — and probably others — have blatantly crossed the line into policy.
And sure enough, if The New York Times is to be believed, the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.
The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said.
The NYTimes, of course, puts its spin on the news, claiming that the whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint. However, given the current state of affairs, we suspect it will simply remind a deeply divided nation of the bias and prejudice that exists behind the President’s back.
As Chuck Schumer once warned Trump:
“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community – they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you… So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”
We wonder how many more ways they have left.
