There are 46 Republicans in the Senate today who in 2020 voted against convicting Donald Trump for withholding military aid from Ukraine in an attempt to get President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to dig up or manufacture dirt against a political opponent Trump feared. (Fifty-two Republican senators voted to acquit Trump, but six are no longer in the Senate.) The specifics here are important as we consider how those Republicans are responding to the Russian invasion of Ukraine—and how they are characterizing President Joe Biden’s response.
During a 2019 phone call, Zelenskyy said, “We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.” Javelins are an anti-tank weapon and have been essential in Ukraine’s defense against Russia. All you really need to know about Trump’s response is that it began, “I would like you to do us a favor though ...”
Trump froze $400 million in military aid to Ukraine as he made his extortion attempt, only unfreezing the aid months later after a whistleblower complaint about it. That frozen aid, coupled with his “I would like you to do us a favor, though,” as a direct response to Zelenskyy’s ask for more Javelins were at the center of Trump’s first impeachment, on which Mitt Romney was the only Republican senator to vote guilty.
Romney voted guilty, and Sens. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama were not in the Senate at the time. Every other Republican in the Senate—along with all 195 Republicans who voted in the House—voted against holding Trump responsible. (And Hagerty, Lummis, Marshall, and Tuberville absolutely would have voted not guilty given the chance.)
Trump has praised Vladimir Putin as Russia invaded Ukraine, and insisted that the invasion would not have happened if he had been in office. Trump is now claiming credit for NATO’s strength (after he threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO) and for U.S. military aid to Ukraine, all part of his campaign to insist that this would not be happening if he were in the White House. In reality, what Putin would or wouldn’t be doing if Trump was in the White House is a mystery, but what we absolutely know is that if Putin invaded Ukraine, a Trump-led United States would not be taking a leading role in a major international diplomatic response.
Republicans, meanwhile, have largely either dodged answering whether they’re with him on his view of Putin or have tacitly supported Trump’s stance.
The Republican talking points are much more focused on blaming Biden than on blaming Putin. “Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a renewed invasion of Ukraine is reprehensible,” House Republican leaders said in a group statement last week, before moving directly to their real interest. “Sadly, President Biden consistently chose appeasement and his tough talk on Russia was never followed by strong action.” These are people who literally voted against impeaching Donald Trump for withholding military aid to try to create a scandal that would harm Biden’s chances in 2020. Many House Republicans followed their leaders in blaming Biden more than they blamed Putin, and the same is true in the Senate.
And no wonder. Once Trump got Republicans to back him in attempting to extort elections help from Ukraine, where wouldn’t they go with him?
Representative Eric Swalwell accused former President Trump of “rooting” for Russia in their war effort against Ukraine and alleged if he were still in office, the former President would be running arms to Vladimir Putin.
Swalwell made the comments on social media.
The California Democrat roped Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo into his criticism of those he alleges are ‘pro-Russia.’
“Do not let Republicans rewrite whose side they were on before Russia attacked Ukraine. Led by Trump/Tucker/Pompeo many were rooting for Russia,” he wrote. “Let’s be real: if Trump was president we’d be sending weapons to Russia.”
Do not let Republicans rewrite whose side they were on before Russia attacked Ukraine. Led by Trump/Tucker/Pompeo many were rooting for Russia. Let’s be real: if Trump was president we’d be sending weapons to Russia. #StandWithUkriane
Swalwell Took Donations From Russia ‘Putin Pipeline’ Lobbyist
Swalwell accusing Republicans of being cozy with Russia may be a bit of projection on the congressman’s part.
The Washington Free Beacon reports that Swalwell’s campaign received a $2,900 donation in 2018 and a $5,400 donation to his campaign in 2018 from Vincent Roberti Sr., who chairs the group Roberti Global.
Roberti is reportedly a top lobbyist for Nord Stream 2 AG, the group behind the Russian pipeline at the center of European politics and which President Biden recently sanctioned after that country invaded Ukraine.
Senate Democrats just last month defended Nord Stream 2 by rejecting an effort by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to impose sanctions related to the Russian-German natural gas pipeline before Biden had to relent after the invasion.
Trump later froze $400 million in congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine after a phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
That phone call later became the focus of a successful impeachment effort against Trump.
The former President later released the military aid.
That anyone believes this garbage is bad not just because it’s typical partisan garbage, but because it obscures a key cause of the conflict: that Trump chose to demonstrate how Tough he was by pumping weapons into Ukraine, turning the country into a de facto US military outpost https://t.co/nXQ118J0CL
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko went to Washington in 2014, when Barack Obama and Joe Biden were in office, and pleaded his case for weapons to defend his country.
He declared at the time “one cannot win a war with blankets.”
Following his speech, The Wall Street Journal reported that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.”
RUSSIAN INVASION: “ IF I WERE PRESIDENT, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED” – TRUMP
“I stand as the only president of the 21st century on whose watch Russia did not invade another country.” – Donald J. Trump.
Trump has insisted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if he were President.
“This should have never happened. This would not have happened during my administration,” he said. “It’s a sad thing for the world and the country and a lot of people that will be needlessly killed.”
A recent poll shows that a majority of Americans – 62% – agree that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were President.
Swalwell recently suggested “kicking every Russian student out of the United States” as a means of retaliating against Putin, something that had it been suggested by a Republican would have resulted in charges of xenophobia.
Vladimir Putin has been bullying Ukraine for many years. But that’s not all. Now, in addition to massing Russian military forces along the border—surrounding his neighbor in what can only be seen as preparation for invading that country—he’s lying about Ukrainians’ very identity in order to snuff out their independence.
Americans know a little something about breaking away from a country with whom we share much in terms of cultural roots. Thanks to history, we also know that when powerful countries start remaking the borders of Europe by force, it opens the door to massive bloodshed.
The lies Putin’s telling these days have a very specific purpose, designed to buttress his bullying. The primary lie is that there are no Ukrainians. He denies their existence as a people, as a community that possesses a national consciousness. They’re really just Russians, you see. That’s why it’s not wrong for Vlad to remake or even erase a border that his country agreed to respect in 1994. He openly violated that treaty in 2014 with his military incursion into the Donbas region of southeastern Ukraine—where he both provided material support for pro-Russian separatists and sent some of his own troops as well—not to mention his outright forced annexation of Crimea. Russia has been violating the agreement consistently ever since.
One of our country’s most highly regarded experts on Eastern Europe, Zbigniew Brzezinski, explained that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.” This is why Putin wants to delegitimize the concept of Ukrainianness. It’s all part of his plan to bring them under his thumb and restore his country’s status as a world power, and also perhaps shore up his political position at home in true Wag the Dog fashion. Invasion seems to be imminent.
NEW: The US believes Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to invade Ukraine, and has communicated that decision to the Russian military, three Western and defense officials tell me.
Who are the Ukrainians? More importantly, who gets to address that question? Putin clearly believes that the answer to the second one is himself, as he laid out his falsehood-laden response to the first one. This took the form of a Jul. 2021 document titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” The two groups are, he claimed, “one people—a single whole … a single people” who have “a common faith, shared cultural traditions … language similarity.” The misinformation was strong in this piece of Фигня.
The article runs through a recitation of historical events extensive enough to make one long for an invasion just to bring it to an end. This 1000-plus year “history” dating back to the medieval state of Kievan Rus’—a loose federation of East Slavic, Baltic, and Finnic peoples in Eastern and Northern Europe that existed from the late 9th to the mid-13th century—is presented in a one-sided fashion that paints the development of a Ukrainianness that exists separate from Russianness as simply false, and as merely the result of foreign influences, ranging from Poles to the Catholic Church to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Political scientist Ivan Krastev noted: “Putin looks at Ukraine and Belarus as part of Russia’s civilizational and cultural space. He thinks the Ukrainian state is totally artificial and that Ukrainian nationalism is not authentic.”
It’s bad enough when a pundit or entertainer tries to define what is and what is not authentic about another group. When the guy doing it has the firepower to actually conquer that group’s country, now we’re talking about a whole other kind of danger.
As for today’s Ukraine, Putin made clear in his missive that he sees himself as the sole and rightful arbiter of what that sovereign nation’s borders should be: “Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas.” In other words: Russia ain’t leaving eastern Ukraine as long as he’s calling the shots. On a side note, Russia doesn’t “need” Donbas either, or benefit in material terms from having some degree of control over it—unless they want a region well-situated to mass-produce Panasonic tape decks.
Finally, Putin presented his conclusion: “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.” Now that’s what I call an abusive partner. Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times, recently offered a slightly different phrasing that perfectly captures Vlad’s thoughts on the matter: “Marry me, or I’ll kill you.”
An analysis of Putin’s essay at the Atlantic Council, a nonpartisan think tank focused on international affairs, noted that it had “been likened in some quarters to a declaration of war” against Ukraine. The analysis included commentary from two experts. Melinda Haring, Deputy Director of the Eurasia Centerat the Atlantic Council, stated:
Putin’s delusional and dangerous article reveals what we already knew: Moscow cannot countenance letting Ukraine go. The Russian president’s masterpiece alone should inspire the West to redouble its efforts to bolster’s Kyiv ability to choose its own future, and Zelenskyy should respond immediately and give Putin a history lesson.
Danylo Lubkivsky, director of the Kyiv Security Forum and a former Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine, added:
Putin understands that Ukrainian statehood and the Ukrainian national idea pose a threat to Russian imperialism. He does not know how to solve this problem. Many in his inner circle are known to advocate the use of force, but for now, the Russian leader has no solutions. Instead, he has written an amateurish propaganda piece designed to provide followers of his “Russian World” ideology with talking points. However, his arguments are weak and simply repeat what anti-Ukrainian Russian chauvinists have been saying for decades. Putin’s essay is an expression of imperial agony.
UKRAINE’S HISTORY OF INDEPENDENCE
Despite Putin’s propaganda—and the document discussed above is just one part of a far-reaching Russian campaign—the Ukrainian people have a long record of expressing an independent national consciousness, of fighting for their independence from Russia as well as other neighboring states. There’s far too much in his diatribe to refute point by point, but suffice it to say that his denial of Ukrainians’ collective existence is far from fact-based. It’s hard to accept the objectivity of a self-styled historian of Ukraine who, in 2008, Putinsplained the following to then-President Bush, “You don’t understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state.”
In reality, in the late nineteenth century, at the same time as other peoples in Central and Eastern Europe, proponents of a Ukrainian sense of peoplehood—nationalists, they called themselves—emerged and began building a movement. At the end of the First World War, these Ukrainian nationalists fought to create an independent state out of the chaos in the region, but were defeated. The part of their country that had been under Tsarist Russian control was ultimately absorbed by the Soviet Union, with a newly independent Poland taking the portion that had been part of Galicia, a previously Austro-Hungarian province. At the end of the Second World War, the USSR grabbed that territory from Poland as well.
Since 1991, when the Soviet Union broke apart, Ukraine has been independent, and sought to carve its own path outside of Moscow’s shadow. The current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has cultivated what one Ukrainian journalist described as: “an inclusive Ukrainian national identity transcending the barriers of language, ethnicity and memory that have so often served to divide Ukrainians.”
TRUMP REARS HIS ORANGE HEAD
Zelensky is none other than the man whom our disgraced former president tried to bully into becoming a stooge in his quest to slander Joe Biden. Those actions led to the first impeachment of The Man Who Lost An Election And Tried To Steal It, thanks in part to the brave actions of whistleblowers like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. In fact, Trump as well as numerous right-wing politicians and media figures have all but openly sided with Putin on Ukraine, as Daily Kos’s Mark Sumner thoroughly presented here (and here, on Fucker Carlson specifically).
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
Vindman, who was born in Ukraine and came with his family to the U.S. in 1979 at the age of three, served as director for European affairs at the National Security Council, and was the top expert on Ukraine in the White House under Fuck a l’Orange. He has urged the U.S. to provide significant defensive military support to Kyiv, and wrote passionately in December about how the land where he was born has evolved since claiming its freedom when the USSR disintegrated:
Over the past 30 years, Ukraine has made major strides in its experiment with democracy. Despite worrying instances of government-backed corruption—undeniably, there is still more work to be done—Ukraine has made hard-fought progress on reform in the midst of war. Six presidents, two revolutions and many violent protests later, the people of Ukraine have sent a clear message that reflects the most fundamental of American values: They will fight for basic rights, and against authoritarian repression.
PARALLELS WITH CHINA AND TAIWAN
We may be seeing some similar developments farther East. After more than seven decades of separation from the mainland government of China, and four decades as a vibrant democracy, the people of Taiwan have increasingly begun to see themselves as having a separate national consciousness as Taiwanese rather than Chinese. For many Ukrainians as well as Taiwanese, the fact that their countries are committed to democratic values, which their erstwhile “big brother” countries reject only serves to heighten their desire to define their separate sense of peoplehood. Both of the larger brothers consider their counterpart’s independence to be a grave offense they cannot abide.
People in Taiwan and China are absolutely paying attention to what’s happening between Russia and Ukraine. Furthermore, the growing ties between Moscow and Beijing—please note the warm meeting between their leaders at the Winter Olympics, hosted by China—not to mention the shared belief that a great power should be able to dominate within a self-defined sphere of influence, offer Putin support for his actions that could counteract potential punishment imposed by the West.
Ultimately, the lies Putin enumerated mask an even more profound truth, one that has nothing to do with an argument about the legitimacy of a particular national identity. Even if Russians and Ukrainians had been “one people” a thousand years ago, or even a thousand days ago, who cares? Things transform in an instant.
DECLARATION(S) OF INDEPENDENCE
Prior to the American Revolution, most of those who were allowed to participate in the political life of the American colonies, as well as their wives and children, defined themselves as English. Nevertheless, they maintained a “right,” as the Founders argued in the Declaration of Independence, to change their minds. Sometimes, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.” Ukrainians, who want to look west rather than north, and who want democracy rather than autocracy, have made the same judgment regarding Russia.
We know what the Russian president is, and what he wants. This is a man who says the quiet part out loud. He actually lamented the collapse of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe and Central Asia as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” He added that the event represented not the liberation of tens of millions but instead “a genuine tragedy.” Why? Because “tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”
The borders of Russia should apparently encompass everywhere Russian people live—with the caveat that Putin himself defines who is Russian. It’s up to no one else other than the self-proclaimed father of the Russian people, the bridegroom to Mother Russia, who will gather together once again all his wayward children, including the ones who ran away from home and never want to go back. Please note his foreign minister’s characterization of the countries once under the sway of the Soviets as “territories orphaned by the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Soviet Union.” As for Ukraine specifically, the head of Vlad’s national security council proclaimed in November that it was a “protectorate” of Moscow.
The type of “we’re all one people” ethno-nationalist claptrap Putin has been spewing on Ukraine is at least an echo, even if not a direct parallel, of the language Adolf Hitler used in 1938 to justify the Anschluss that forcibly joined Austria to Nazi Germany and to justify taking the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, as well as aggressive action toward Poland. In all these cases, Hitler claimed that he was simply reuniting people who shared German ancestry—German blood. To clarify, Putin is talking more about shared Russian culture than blood ties, and there’s no evidence he is bent on genocide or world domination.
Nevertheless, a great power committing this kind of aggression—now threatening to commit even more of it—and using this kind of tribal nationalism as a pretext, is something that Europe has not seen for almost a century. It cannot be allowed to succeed, and thankfully President Biden and our European allies are taking steps to make sure that it doesn’t.
It would be nice if we could clone White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki thousands of times and send the newly minted Psaki Corps out to every drunk uncle and horse paste-chugging churl in the U.S., but we don’t have that technology. (Plus it might be unethical or something.)
But while the idea of a rhetorically well-armed Psaki Corps may be a nonstarter (and it would have been nice if someone had apprised me of the ethical conundrums before I designed the uniforms), we’re fortunate to have the Psaki we have. She’s more than a match for Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who has been half-digesting and fully regurgitating Russian propaganda over the past several days.
REPORTER: “Sen. Hawley put out a statement today saying that the president should take NATO membership off the table for Ukraine, that it wasn’t in U.S. interests to do that. Do you think that sort of rhetoric or that sort of position by a U.S. senator right now is helpful in this showdown between the West and Russia?”
PSAKI: “Well, if you are digesting Russian misinformation and parroting Russian talking points, you are not aligned with longstanding, bipartisan American values, which is to stand up for the sovereignty of countries, like Ukraine but others. Their right to choose their own alliances, and also to stand against, very clearly, the efforts or attempts or potential attempts by any country to invade and take territory of another country. That applies to Sen. Hawley, but it also applies to others who may be parroting the talking points of Russian propagandist leaders.”
It’s unclear exactly why Hawley suddenly decided to take the murderous thug Putin’s side over that of our natural ally, but it hasn’t gone over all that well, even among members of his own party.
In response to Hawley’s letter, Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of the few Republicans left in Congress who actually cares about representative democracy, tweeted this:
I hate to be so personal, but Hawley is one of the worst human beings, and a self egrandizing con artist. When Trump goes down I certainly hope this evil will be layed in the open for all to see, and be ashamed of. https://t.co/3LirLgeuMz
“I hate to be so personal, but Hawley is one of the worst human beings, and a self [aggrandizing] con artist. When Trump goes down I certainly hope this evil will be [laid] in the open for all to see, and be ashamed of.”
When Hawley was informed of Kinzinger’s tweet, he laughed and responded, “Weird.” Kinzinger was ready for that one.
It is weird. We are in weird times. Like having a Senator more interested in pleasing Tucker and playing to worst instincts than leading. Denying Jan 6th truth despite fomenting it, among other things. https://t.co/Uovrh172dh
“It is weird. We are in weird times. Like having a Senator more interested in pleasing Tucker and playing to worst instincts than leading. Denying Jan 6th truth despite fomenting it, among other things.”
Yeah, weird indeed to see Republicans, who are generally all-in on unnecessary wars, do their level best to undermine our best efforts to prevent this one. I lost track of the number of times during the 2003 runup to the Iraq disaster that Republicans compared antiwar peeps (like me, or Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas) to notorious World War II appeaser Neville Chamberlain—all because we thought it might be foolish to invade a country for no clear reason. Well, now we have every reason in the world to project power, unity, and strength in defense of liberal democracy, and suddenly Republicans have cold feet. Unfortunately, this attempt to chip away at our united front can only embolden Putin, who wants nothing more than for the West to drop its longstanding commitment to democracy so he can ooze into the gaps.
Hawley, who attended both Stanford and Yale, must surely know that. Just as he surely knew there were no credible reports of voter fraud prior to the Jan. 6 riot that he egged on.
But Hawley has likely been watching Tucker Carlson, who’s making inroads with his viewers when it comes to supporting Putin against our friendly democratic ally.
That’s right: Carlson’s pro-autocratic bleating is now apparently informing the decisions of Republican politicians, who are distancing themselves from Ukraine as much as possible.
Republicans running in high-profile primary races aren't racing to defend Ukraine against a possible Russian invasion. They're settlingon a different line of attack: Blame Biden, not Putin.
What's happening: Leery of the base, they are avoiding — and in some cases, rejecting — the tough-on-Russia rhetoric that once defined the Republican Party. GOP operatives working in 2022 primary races tell Axios they worry they'll alienate the base if they push to commit American resources to Ukraine or deploy U.S. troops to eastern Europe.
...
The big picture: Republican hopefuls who vow not to assist in any potential conflict in Ukraine are reflecting — and fanning — anti-interventionist sentiments in the modern GOP.
Hmm. Who’s like Neville Chamberlain now?
Of course, it helps not to elect a bellowing, kompromat-encrusted lout to the highest office in the land if you’re hoping to protect democracy and human rights around the globe. As Axios notes, frustration with our long, Republican-initiated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as “former President Donald Trump's warmer posture toward Russia,” have helped nudge the GOP in this new direction.
That said, chances are Hawley is just playing politics here. If Biden had said we were going to bar Ukraine from NATO, Hawley would probably be calling for his impeachment this morning. The dude sways in whatever direction the foul Mordor winds blow.
But this isn’t a joke. We’re talking about the fate of a fragile democratic state with 44 million souls yearning to stay free. Americans once cared about such things, and many of us still do.
Then again, Josh Hawley isn’t much of an American, is he?
With a link to an article about Hawley’s position, Kinzinger wrote, “I hate to be so personal, but Hawley is one of the worst human beings, and a self egrandizing [sic] con artist. When Trump goes down I certainly hope this evil will be layed [sic] in the open for all to see, and be ashamed of.” Those are the kinds of phone typos one makes when one is fuming angry.
A reminder, Rep. Kinzinger is still a large part of the problem, but he is fighting to wrestle it away from politicians who are somehow even more detestable than him and Liz Cheney. The fact that former dark lord of the underworld, Dick Cheney’s daughter isn’t evil enough for the current crop of GOP operatives is terrifying.
History will remember that when democracy was at stake Adam Kinzinger voted against voting rights, by proxy. pic.twitter.com/vgvSOrIvvn
Rep. Kinzinger and Rep. Liz Cheney are fighting for their political lives at this point in time. They represent the previous GOP establishment that had a little more generational wealth attached to their version of white supremacy. Rep. Kinzinger made the mistake of believing that Trump would leave and that the rest of the GOP would rally around moving forward with their big donor list and the billionaires that support them. Unfortunately, we are living in desperate times and the only way that Cheney and Kinzinger can survive is to do the right thing and bring criminal charges to light about the complicity and the possible conspiracy by Republicans like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, and others, to overturn our democratically elected 46th President.
House Republicans are demanding transcripts of a call between President Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about a possible Russian invasion of the country be released after disputed reports over the substance of the conversation.
CNN initially reported that a senior Ukrainian official described the talk between Biden and Zelensky as “long and frank” but that it “did not go well.”
CNN reporter Alexander Marquardt, late Thursday, tweeted alarming quotes provided by the Ukrainian official.
“A Russian invasion is now virtually certain once the ground freezes, Biden said to Zelensky, a senior Ukrainian official told [CNN reporter Matthew Chance],” he wrote.
“Kyiv could be ‘sacked,’ Russian forces may attempt to occupy it, ‘prepare for impact’, Biden said, according to this official.”
A Russian invasion is now virtually certain once the ground freezes, Biden said to Zelensky, a senior Ukrainian official told @mchancecnn. Kyiv could be “sacked,” Russian forces may attempt to occupy it, “prepare for impact”, Biden said, according to this official.
The characterization of the phone call was immediately disputed by the White House and the Ukrainian government, according to Newsweek.
National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne described the CNN report based on a Ukrainian official’s comments as “completely false.”
This is not true. President Biden said that there is a distinct possibility that the Russians could invade Ukraine in February. He has previously said this publicly & we have been warning about this for months. Reports of anything more or different than that are completely false. https://t.co/chkFOhwWHn
Horne would later tell CNN that “anonymous sources are ‘leaking’ falsehoods.”
A spokesman for Zelensky also posted to Facebook that the accounts were “completely false.”
A readout of the call on the White House website makes no mention of any dire warnings to Ukraine, instead indicating that Biden “reaffirmed” to Zelensky that the United States would “respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine.”
House Republicans though, challenged the White House to clear the air by demanding they release the actual transcript of the call.
They added a video of Biden in 2019 calling on then-President Trump to “release the transcript of the call” between him and Zelensky, a call that led to the former president’s first impeachment in 2019.
The hashtag ‘#ReleaseTheTranscript’ began trending and was the number one leading topic on Twitter Friday morning.
Releasing the transcript of Biden’s call with Zelensky seems like a logical step. The last thing all parties involved need is reckless and possibly false comments by the President escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
BREAKING: We have recovered the Ukraine call report that @JakeTapper and CNN just deleted
The controversy comes as experts are warning of a nuclear exchange should Russia and the U.S. come to blows.
“As Russian troops bear down on Ukraine and the United States prepares its own military buildup in Eastern Europe, concerns are growing across the ideological spectrum that the standoff could inadvertently escalate into the unthinkable: nuclear war,” Politico reports.
The column cites “current and former officials and experts on both sides of the Atlantic” who worry about ‘miscalculations’ and ‘stumbling into nuclear confrontation.’
Is there anything at stake here that could justify even the remote chance of nuclear war?
Shortly after Biden was sworn into office, dozens of House Democrats quietly called on President Biden to relinquish sole control over the country’s nuclear arsenal and the ability to launch a strike using those weapons.
Nearly three dozen House Democrats on Monday called on Biden to relinquish his sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, in the latest appeal to reform the command-and-control structure so that no single person can initiate a nuclear war https://t.co/AOIHaYf1b4pic.twitter.com/OSKJ64d3cW
General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, assured House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that in the waning days of the Trump presidency, a President couldn’t launch a nuclear attack alone.
The State Department in November said “all options are on the table and there’s a toolkit that includes a whole range of options” in how to respond to Russia’s troop buildup near Ukraine’s border.
I don’t know about you, but I used to feel pretty on edge whenever Donald Trump left the country. As bad as it was having him here, seeing him take overseas trips felt a bit like that scene in The Silence of the Lambs where Lecter escapes from his cage and no one can find him. What will happen? Will Trump shove Montenegro’s prime minister out of the way like an unruly child trying to get to the front of a Sno-Cone queue? Will he stand next to murderous dictators looking like Droopy Dog at the tail end of a four-day bath salts bender? Or will his diseased offal heap of a brain spin the wheel and do something truly Dadaistic, like appointing his horse to the Senate while ordering Ted Cruz to pull a wagon of turnips through Mar-a-Lago 16 hours a day with a Trump-branded bit in his mouth?
My point is, anything could happen with this guy. And while that’s a great trait in a shock jock or a WWE wrestler, it’s not something I want to see in a man whose preternaturally stubby fingers hover over the nuclear button. But I’m just a garden-variety, standard-issue American with an ordinary interest in not dying gruesomely for no reason. Imagine how much worse it was for people on the front lines of Donald Trump’s war on reality.
Well, you don’t have to imagine. Former presidential adviser and National Security Council official Fiona Hill, who was a key witness in Trump’s first impeachment trial, has an insider’s take.
LEMON: “I just want to read something that you told the BBC about the Trump-Putin press conference, this is in Helsinki, and you said this. You said, ‘My initial thought was just ‘How can I end this?’ I literally did have in my mind the idea of faking some kind of medical emergency and throwing myself backwards with a loud, blood-curdling scream into the media.’ I mean, of all the disastrous things that you have seen on the world stage, Fiona, where did that moment fall, and did you seriously consider that? Was it that bad?”
HILL: “I did seriously think about it. First of all, I looked around to see if there was a fire alarm, but we were in a rather grand building attached to the presidential palace … and I couldn’t see anything that resembled a fire alarm.
Look, I had exactly the same feeling that Deborah Birx had during the infamous press conference where there was the suggestion by President Trump about injecting bleach to counteract the coronavirus. It was one of those moments where, it was mortifying, frankly, and humiliating for the country. And it was also completely, I have to say, out of step with what had happened in the meeting prior to that.
The meeting itself was quite anodyne. Putin had tried to pull a fast one again. He always likes to stoke outrage. He had come up with the idea of potentially allowing the United States to interview some operatives from the Russian military intelligence services who had been just indicted for their interference in the 2016 elections, but of course he was just about to announce to the world as well that he would then like to interview a few Americans, including our former ambassador Mike McFaul and a number of State Department and other officials who he’d also got in his crosshairs, so he knew that that was going to stoke outrage.
But it was the press conference itself and the way that President Trump unfortunately handled himself which was, you know, the worst moment of all. And as I said, I just thought let’s just cut this off, let’s try to end it, but of course I couldn’t come up with anything that wouldn’t just add to the terrible spectacle.”
Think about that. A top presidential adviser literally thought about pulling a fire alarm to save Donald Trump, and the nation, from Donald Trump. The best idea I could ever come up with was anonymously sending him a case of Velveeta-slathered sex toys—and that was after four years of racking my brain. But pulling a fire alarm was probably a better idea. Giving him a shiny new firetruck to play with would have also been a viable option.
Fast forward to today where, if none of President Biden’s advisers thought about tackling him to the ground and bringing in an exfil team to get him away from Putin, we’re already far, far ahead of where we were as a country at this time last year.
But none of this will convince the members of the Republican Bizarro World Caucus, better known as the entire Republican Party, except for Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, plus a smattering of other consensus-reality dead-enders. The GOP currently imagines a world where Joe Biden, who has five decades of relevant experience, somehow collapses under the weight of his own competence.
I don’t know about you, but I feel a whole lot better about where we are today than one year ago. At the very least, there’s a much better chance of Biden bringing Putin to heel, rather than the other way around.
Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, speaking in a podcast hosted by the former First Lady, promoted a wild theory that President Trump updated Russian President Vladimir Putin during the Capitol riots, and would like to see a 9/11-style commission investigating the events.
“I would love to see his phone records to see if he was talking to Putin the day the insurgents invaded our Capitol,” Clinton told the House Speaker.
Russian collusion conspiracies dominated President Trump’s entire term, as Democrats baselessly claimed his campaign had conspired with Putin to steal the election in 2016.
Clinton’s accusation is offered without proof and is so wild that had somebody on the right offered up such conjecture without evidence they would have been banned from social media.
Clinton would also add that President Trump had “other agendas” while in the White House, and hoped that one day it will become clear who he was “beholden to” and who “pulls his strings.”
Congress needs to establish an investigative body like the 9/11 Commission to determine Trump’s ties to Putin so we can repair the damage to our national security and prevent a puppet from occupying the presidency ever again. pic.twitter.com/yR7LQmXm5Z
Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Want 9/11-Style Commission Into Capitol Riots
Asked by Hillary Clinton whether a 9/11-style commission would be necessary to investigate the riots at the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi responded in the affirmative.
Pelosi claimed she once told Trump, “With you, Mr. President, all roads lead to Putin.”
“I don’t know what Putin has on him politically, financially or personally, but what happened last week was a gift to Putin because Putin wants to undermine democracy in our country and throughout the world,” she said.
Ironically, most of the peaceful protesters at the Capitol were there because they believed there was election fraud and that Democrats had undermined democracy.
Also worth noting – no two individuals did more to undermine the 2016 election and the will of the American people by pushing false allegations against the President than these two.
“So yes, we should have a 9/11 commission and there is strong support in the Congress to do that,” Pelosi added.
There was a special counsel with the full power of the FBI and DOJ that looked into this for years and found nothing…
This is now just harassment of a political opponent and antagonizing of his supporters.
Hard to believe, but Clinton actually posted a clip of the interview with Pelosi and labeled it in-part, “a conversation” about “moving forward as a country.”
Unity doesn’t quite entail harassing your political opponent with baseless claims and conspiracy theories.
Fox News contributor Byron York tweeted a clip of the podcast and added: “There was a House investigation. A Senate investigation. A special prosecutor investigation with the full powers of law enforcement. Obsessive media inquiries. None found what Hillary Clinton wanted to find. So she wants another…”
So I guess we’re all the way back to “Russia, Russia, Russia “. Seems so 2017.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that Twitter chose not to add a disclaimer to Clinton’s podcast clip which clearly states a conspiracy theory backed by little to no proof.
Had Trump done this – well, we all know what happened to the President on Twitter.
Hillary Clinton, in an op-ed last week, called the riots at the Capitol “the tragically predictable result of white-supremacist grievances fueled by President Trump” and supported calls for his impeachment.
“Removing Trump from office is essential, and I believe he should be impeached,” she wrote.
“Members of Congress who joined him in subverting our democracy should resign, and those who conspired with the domestic terrorists should be expelled immediately,” Clinton added.
There is no evidence that the Capitol protests were about race. There is no evidence that Republican members of Congress helped the rioters. And there is no evidence that Putin was somehow connected.
These are just the meandering thoughts of a pair of geriatrics bitter that President Trump ascended to the White House in a role they’ll never play.
President Trump will reportedly award two of his staunchest allies – Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (D-OH) – with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The prestigious award is the Nation’s highest civilian honor.
The Washington Post, citing a source familiar with the plans, claimed the President “is using his final days in the White House in part to reward friends and allies with pardons and other decorations.”
They describe Nunes as “one of Trump’s most vocal supporters in his quest to undermine the Justice Department’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.”
The President is expected to award Nunes with the medal on Monday, and Jordan next week.
NEW: Trump is expected to give Rep. Devin Nunes the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation’s highest civilian honor — on Monday, and to give the same award to Rep. Jim Jordan next week. https://t.co/mtk1u7JL9z
Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan to Get the Presidential Medal of Freedom
Of course, describing Nunes’ efforts as “undermin(ing) the Justice Department’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election” is an incredibly biased way of saying ‘revealing corruption during the Special Counsel’s probe.’
And Nunes did that in spades.
If not for the California Republican, America might never have known about the deep-seated corruption that took place behind closed doors during the Russia probe.
Devin Nunes writes letter to Adam Schiff pointing out several serious errors Schiff made in characterizing Steele dossier, Page FISA, more. ‘It is clear you are in need of rehabilitation…’ pic.twitter.com/qoY3p7EJOo
Nunes authored a memo that was released by the House Intelligence Committee in February, 2018, which alleged abuses of power by the FBI during its investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
Nunes, according to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), would ultimately be “proven correct” by the Mueller report, while House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who provided a counter-memo and repeatedly leaked information to the media, would ultimately be proven a liar.
Schiff repeatedly stated through left-wing media outlets that there was “direct evidence” of collusion even as he knew that Obama officials testified time and again that there was no such evidence.
NEW: former DNI James Clapper says : “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/ conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” — in transcript of interview with House Intel during its Russia probe.
Nunes suggested Schiff was so adept at lying that he might be in need of rehabilitation.
“After publishing false conclusions of such enormity on a topic directly within this committee’s oversight responsibilities, it is clear you are in need of rehabilitation,” Nunes wrote in a letter, “and I hope this letter will serve as the first step in that vital process.”
More recently, Nunes announced plans to submit a criminal referral to the Department of Justice following the release of newly declassified messages from former FBI agent Peter Strzok.
The California Republican suggested the DOJ and FBI misled Congress regarding documents that had been requested during an investigation of potential FISA abuses.
Fox News host Sean Hannity told Nunes that he deserved the Presidential Medal of Freedom during a segment on his show in August of 2018.
Hannity said Nunes “frankly, deserves the medal of freedom for really showing, sadly, the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal.”
President Trump would later laud Nunes during an interview on Fox & Friends.
“He is really, what he has gone through and his bravery. He should get a very important medal,” Trump said. “Maybe we’ll call it medal of freedom because we actually give them, they’re high awards for civilians.”
An Axios report indicates a woman suspected of being a Chinese spy targeted several local and national politicians in California, including former Democrat presidential candidate and current House Rep. Eric Swalwell.
The bombshell report indicates Fang Fang, or Christine Fang, served as a Chinese Intelligence operative with China’s Ministry of State Security.
Fang reportedly used campaign fundraising, networking, her charm, as well as romantic and sexual relationships to get close with politicians between 2011 and 2015.
She “targeted up-and-coming local politicians in the Bay Area and across the country who had the potential to make it big on the national stage,” the report reads.
Axios alleges that Fang engaged in “romantic or sexual relationships with at least two Midwestern mayors” and, as a result, “was able to gain proximity to political power.”
Exclusive: A suspected Chinese intelligence operative bundled donations for Eric Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign.
The operation targeted politicians in California & across the country.
A political operative and a current U.S. intelligence official advised Axios that Fang “took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign” and that the Democrat Rep. “was directly aware of these activities on its behalf.”
They do not allege any of the fundraising was illegal, but they do indicate the alleged Chinese spy was able to place an intern with Swalwell’s office and that she interacted with the Congressman “at multiple events over the course of several years.”
Eric Swalwell Won’t Comment on Alleged Relationship With Chinese Spy
In a statement to Axios, Swalwell’s office asserted that his knowledge of Fang was fleeting and he could not comment due to national security concerns.
“Rep. Swalwell, long ago, provided information about this person — whom he met more than eight years ago, and whom he hasn’t seen in nearly six years — to the FBI,” they responded to the yearlong investigation.
“To protect information that might be classified, he will not participate in your story.”
But the Axios report indicates it was the FBI who had to interject in the Swalwell-Fang connection because they were “so alarmed.”
Shown here: Eric Swalwell posing for a picture with his Chinese communist spy girlfriend. He needs to step down from House Intel until we find out what kind of blackmail material the Chinese communists have on him. pic.twitter.com/DQY5JLk91P
“Federal investigators became so alarmed by Fang’s behavior and activities that around 2015 they alerted Swalwell to their concerns — giving him what is known as a defensive briefing,” the report indicates.
They note that Swalwell “immediately cut off all ties to Fang” and that “he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.”
If Swalwell insists that his relationship with a Chinese spy was brief and inconsequential, who are we to argue? But we find it highly unlikely the Democrat lawmaker would be quite so forgiving had a Republican or President Trump been involved with a spy.
After all, it was this same man who claimed the President was guilty until proven innocent of allegations mounted during impeachment.
Swalwell chose not to participate in this Axios story. President Trump late last year, refused to send documents and witnesses to mount a defense against the House Democrat impeachment circus.
“We can only conclude that you’re guilty,” the California lawmaker stated at the time.
“In America, innocent men do not hide and conceal evidence,” Swalwell added. “They are forthcoming and they want to cooperate and the president is acting like a very guilty person right now.”
Sounds like Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell has decided to come out against the 5th Amendment.
Huh. Drawing conclusions based on Swalwell’s thought process would cause him quite a bit of trouble, to say the least.
Swalwell was also one of the biggest congressional promotors of the Russia hoax. In a January 2019 interview on MSNBC, the Democrat asserted President Trump was a Russian agent.
“He’s working on behalf of the Russians, yes,” he falsely claimed.
Former Acting Director of United States National Intelligence Richard Grenell called out Swalwell on the news of his entanglement with a Chinese spy, saying the Democrat “is a total hypocrite and should resign in disgrace.”
Others noted that, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Swalwell would have been prone to blackmail had he been one of the officials involved in an actual physical relationship with Fang.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) needs to be immediately removed from the House Intelligence Committee https://t.co/EiFnisU6Hp
Fang, the Chinese spy who got close to a former presidential candidate in Eric Swalwell, left the United States “unexpectedly in mid-2015 amid the investigation,” according to Axios.
JIM JORDAN NUKES SCHIFF ON LIVE TV