Ukraine, Trump, Biden - The Real Story Behind "Ukrainegate"by Eric Zuesse!
(2019-11-27 at 15:50:26 )

Ukraine, Trump, Biden - The Real Story Behind "Ukrainegate"by Eric Zuesse

Since this news-report is going to be especially harsh regarding todays Democratic Party in the United States, readers should be aware that until that Party nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016, this writer was, and consistently voted as, a Democrat, and that I have never been, and never could be, a Republican.

In no way does this article reflect a Republican viewpoint. It is not partisan - not favoring one persons viewpoint over any others. (Though it does favor trustworthy evidence over untrustworthy hearsay and witnesses, etc.)

This article is written by a consistent progressive, which means a person whose top value is truth, nothing else than 100% honesty and reflecting only personally verified sources, real facts.

Intense care has therefore been taken in checking and cross-checking and validating information before accepting here anything as constituting information instead of as being disinformation (which is sadly rampant).

The following article is written only because it reports what my own independent researches have found to be the actual case regarding what is now commonly called "Ukrainegate" (the focus of the impeachment-proceedings against United States President Donald Trump).

The "news"-media and the Democrats have been grossly misrepresenting what the "Ukrainegate" narrative and the impeachment proceedings against the current United States President are all about; and, as a result of this widespread misinformation, ABC News headlined on November 18th, "70% of United States of Americans say President Trumps actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL", and reported that "32%, say they made up their minds about impeaching the president before the news broke about President Trumps July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Donald Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter."

This poll found that 100% of the 506 scientifically sampled respondents had heard at least some of the impeachment hearings, and that 51% of them agreed with the statement, "President Trumps actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate," while 6% agreed instead with "President Trumps actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House but NOT removed from office by the Senate." 25% agreed instead with "President Trumps actions were NOT wrong."

However, far more was actually involved in this phone call than allegations against the Bidens; and those allegations regarding the Bidens have themselves been grossly misrepresented in the press, as this article will show, and will document in its links to the actual and most trustworthy evidence in the case. (Of course, the very best evidence is the call itself, and that will therefore be the first thing linked to and discussed here.)

Furthermore, the American public should have been far more skeptical about the Ukrainegate narrative than they were, because, at first, Democrats were trying to use, as their ground on which to impeach Trump - and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being Americas President - Trumps having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President Trump. Now the Democrats ground, for replacing President Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence, is that in Trumps 25 July 2019 phone-call to Ukraines new President Volodmyr Zelensky, Donald Trump supposedly pressured Mr. Zelensky to have Joe Biden investigated.

One of the first signs of a liar is that the person switches his story - changes to a new and different reason for "justifying" his actions (in this case, impeachment) - and this clearly is being done now by the Democrats and the "news"-media, in order to replace President Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence.

Consequently: United States of Americans are insufficiently suspicious against the present impeachment hearings.

United States of Americans need to examine carefully beyond the mere surface - much deeper. The links here are provided in order to facilitate the readers direct access to the highest quality (i.e., most trustworthy) evidence in the case, so that the reader may see, on ones own, what the "news’"-media do not report.

25 September 2019 was when a clear and copyable version of the transcript of that complete July 25th phone conversation finally became published, online, by Rhode Islands Providence Journal; and here is the only passage in the complete transcript where Donald Trump mentioned Joe Biden (three times, in fact - the only three times that the word "Biden" appears in the entire transcript):

Rudy Giuliani very much knows what is happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador to Ukraine from the United States, the woman Ms Marie Yovanovitch, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.

The other thing, there is a lot of talk about Joe Bidens son, that Joe Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the United States Attorney General William Barr would be great. Joe Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it..It sounds horrible to me.

What "prosecution," of whom, for what, and why?

The media ignore those questions. when they are not simply assuming an answer to them. But no such answer ought to be assumed. Nor should these important questions be ignored.

Furthermore, elsewhere in that conversation, Trump said:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people. The server, they say Ukraine has it.

Mr. Zelensky responded by asserting that "the next prosecutor general in Ukraine will be 100% my person" and that "he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company Crowdstrike that you mentioned in this issue."

Nothing at all was said by Mr. Zelensky about any Biden, at any point in the entire phone call. It was not mainly about the Bidens such as the press alleges to be the case.

In fact: the "favor" that Donald Trump was asking about was not concerning the Bidens, but it instead concerned the investigation that Trumps Attorney General (referenced here when Trump said "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great") is now heading, into the question of why President Obamas Federal Bureau of Investigation and entire intelligence community had proceeded with the highly suspect Christopher Steele and Crowdstrike report that the Democratic National Committee had hired under Obama in order to come up with allegations to use against Trump, and why the Obama Administration never demanded to inspect the DNCs own server in order to examine the key physical evidence in the alleged Russiagate case against Donald Trump - much less, what testimony and evidence Julian Assange might have in the alleged Russiagate case.

What did President Trump mean when he said "The server, they say Ukraine has it"?

Did President Trump actually think that Mr. Zelensky could supply that physical evidence?

What did he mean?

What was he asking of Mr. Zelensky when Mr. Trump said, "The server, they say Ukraine has it"?

One can not understand the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump unless one understands accurately what was happening in Ukraine and what the motivations were of the persons who were involved in United States-Ukraine policy, first under United States President Barack Obama, and then under his successor Donald Trump.

Information will be presented here, about those matters, which probably will not come up in the House impeachment hearings.

These matters are likelier to be publicly discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too "sensitive" to be brought up even there - especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February 2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraines democratically elected Government, and - if that happened, as we will show it did - how this fact might affect Mr. Trumps relationship with Mr. Zelensky.

So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the "news"-media have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public.

There are many instances of United States coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had negative blowback.

The 1953 United States coup against Irans democratically elected Government was not revealed to the United States of American public until decades after it had happened.

It had long been alleged to have been a "democratic revolution" in Iran.

Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long time, and not only about "WMD in Iraq".

We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup in Iran (and other similar instances by the United States Government) is being repeated (yet again) in the case of the February 2014 United States coup that occurred in Ukraine.

The regime is very effective at lying, at deceiving, at manipulating, its public, no less now than it was then.

Without understanding the reality of President Obamas coup in Ukraine, there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate.

The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obamas 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types.

The argument to be presented here is that Donald Trump, in this phone call, and generally, was trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the "Crowdstrike" matter (which A.G. Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned "Crowdstrike" at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a "favor" from Mr. Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via Obamas coup and its aftermath).

This is a fact, which will be documented here.

Far more than politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. President Trump was considering a basic change in United States foreign policies.

He was considering to replace policies that had been established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama.

Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes.

This is one of the reasons for the renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They do not want to let go of Mr. Obamas worst policies. But changing United States foreign policy is within a Presidents Constitutional authority to do.

President Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019.

This culminated a growing rejection by Donald Trump of neoconservatism - something that he had never thought much about but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in 2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more - possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who likewise was a flaming neocon.

President Trumps gradual turn away from neoconservatism was not just political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently still has not yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)

For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, whom President Trump had recently (in May 2019)) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine.

Democrats presented her as having been the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in the United States of Americas foreign service. She was actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W. Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in 2001. President Obama appointed her, on 18 May 2016, to replace Geoff Pyatt (shown and heard in this video confidentially receiving instructions from Mr. Obamas agent controlling Ukraine-policy, Victoria Nuland) as the Ambassador to Ukraine.

President Obama had selected Ms Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions.

Ms Yovanovitch was part of Barack Obamas team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bushs team.

All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.

A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of the United States of American empire over this entire planet, even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia.

President Obamas standard phrase arguing for it was "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation", meaning that all other nations are "dispensable."

This imperialistic belief was an extension of Yales "pacifist" pro-Nazi America First movement, which was supported by Wall Streets Dulles brothers in the early 1940s, and which pro-Nazi movement Donald Trump himself has prominently praised.

Unlike the progressive United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the United Nations in order to be the anti-imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of nations - a global democratic federation of sovereign republics - neoconservatives are United States imperialists, who want instead to destroy the United Nations, and to extend American power over the entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the world, and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator.

The United Nations would be weakened to insignificance.

This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric.

Yales John Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: United States imperialism.

Regarding the campaign to take over Russia, however, he no longer does - he has broken with Bolton on that central neoconservative goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme than Obamas policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact, produced the coup in Ukraine).

When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on as policy on the American imperialists side.

The neoconservative side, which controlled the United States Government by that time (FDRs vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russias sovereignty over its own land, and certainly not over the land of Russias neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile border with Russia.

Neoconservatives want United States missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along Russias border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along Canadas and Mexicos borders with the United States; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but neoconservatives are not decent people.

Neoconservatives (United States imperialists) seek for all of Russias neighbors to become part of the United States empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become able to gobble it up.

All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.

In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on 11 October 2019, Ms Yovanovich stated her views regarding what Americas policies toward Ukraine should be, and these were President Obamas policies, too; these views are the neoconservative outlook {and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and lies in this key passage from her]:

Because of Ukraines geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to the security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to the security of Russia - it is a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning, to neoconservatives, under United States control], and that it continue to resist Russian expansionism [like Russia cares about United States expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere? Really? Is that actually what this is about? It is about extending United States imperialism on and across Russias border into Russia itself]]

Russias purported annexation of Crimea [but, actually, "Clear and convincing evidence will be presented here that, under United States President Barack Obama, the United States Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russias main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a United States naval base."], its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov, make clear Russias malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russias determination not to be surrounded by enemies - by United States-stooge regimes.

For Russia to avoid that is "malign", she says].

If we allow Russias actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the United States will regret for decades to come.

So, supporting Ukraines integration into Europe and combating Russias efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America did not do that destabilization?] have anchored our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and demanded to be a part of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before Obamas takeover of Ukraine in February 2014 did not actually want to be part of the EU nor of NATO, and they considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine."

In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean "protection of your country," 40% said it is "a threat to your country]".

That was United States policy when I became ambassador in August 2016 [after Obamas successful coup there took over its media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia], and it was reaffirmed as that policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017.

[Yes, that is correct, finally a truthful assertion from her. When Donald Trump first came into office, he was a neoconservative, too.]

The Revolution of Dignity [you will see here the -dignity- of it] and the Ukrainian peoples demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that countrys political and economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before].

That is just one example - it is about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch.

But the focus of Ukrainegate is not really that. It is not Ms Yovanovitch.

It is what President Trump was trying to do, and what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done.

It is also about Joe Bidens son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending individuals.

Donald Trump is not certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged neoconservative, and to continue extending Barack Obamas neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine.

So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama’s policy in Ukraine, a policy of which the Bidens themselves were very much Barack Obamas agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to continue and extend those policies.

Here will be necessary to document some personal and business relationships that the United States news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about whether to replace Trump by Pence:

The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Bidens son, Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian Government until Ukraines President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government, which the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that phone-conversation appointing Ukraines new leader is explained here), in what the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor has correctly called "the most blatant coup in history." (Here is more explanation of that coup which was done by Obama.)

One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against Americas current President Donald Trump ("Ukrainegate"), unless one first knows and understands accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of Ukraine, and the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government (installing it), and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss at Burisma, Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obamas agent Victoria Nuland) had installed Ukraines new Government.

As I had written on 28 September 2019, "In order to understand why Ukraines President Voldomyr Zelensky does not want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Bidens boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Mr. Zelenskys boss and benefactor until Mr. Zelensky became Ukraines President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places."

That article, at the phrase "dug up in 2012," discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac) funded by Americas billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup, as well as of Barack Obamas political career itself) in order to help to bring down Ms Yanukovych.

However, what this study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped. It found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovychs overthrow.

Mr. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administrations post-coup Ukrainian Government.

Mr. Obamas financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obamas Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama had just overthrown.

Hunter Bidens function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government.

Hunter Biden was to serve as a United States fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunters father, Joe Biden, followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky. Soros is not really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to take over, and that he uses the United States Government in order to take over.

Neoconservatism is simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of billionaires. (In Americas case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.)

So, it is just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international relations are imperialists; and, in America, that is called "neoconservative."

The American issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraines corruption. Corruption is standard and accepted throughout the United States-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over it becomes a Public Relations point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own countrys imperialism and its own associated corruption.

"Our countrys corruption is acceptable, but yours is not," is the view. That is the standard imperialist view.

Neoconservatism - imperialism anywhere, actually - is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot.

No patriot is a nationalist.

Whereas a nationalist supports his countrys billionaires, a patriot supports his countrys residents - all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights.

A nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ.

All other nationalists are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than patriots.

Information has not yet been published regarding what Donald Trumps agent Rudolph Giuliani has found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that I am aware of, and it is evidence which contradicts what the United States-and-allied press have been reporting about the Bidens involvement in Ukraine.

So: this information might be what Donald Trumps team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as Americas President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which United States-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly contradicting - contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is presented here.

Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by Americas press, regarding Ukrainegate.

After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from Moscow,John Helmer, headlined on 19 February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports, "THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II - WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT WASHINGTON DOES NOT WANT TO SEE", and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government records but also to United Kingdom Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma.

So, all of the United States-and-allied "news"-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this firm when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false.

(See this, for example, from Britains Guardian, two years later, on 12 April 2017, simply ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting Mr. Zlochevsky - Mr. Kolomoyskys decoy - as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burismas alleged corruption.)

So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraines Government prosecute Mr. Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own boss, Barack Obamas, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych - the Ukrainian President whom Obama had overthrown.

This is not to say that Mr. Yanukovych was not corrupt; every post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt.

Ukraine is famous for being corrupt. But, this does not necessarily mean that Mr. Zlochevsky was corrupt. However, Mr. Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all Ukrainians.

Perhaps Mr. Kolomoyskys major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in Washington,D.C. for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons causes.

For example, on 11 March 2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered "Victor Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections" and he reported that

Victor Pinchuk is a Ukrainian billionaire.

He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.

He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.

Mr. Pinchuks been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at severely below-market prices through political favoritism.

Mr. Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze.

Mr. Kuchma was never charged but is widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back up this assertion.

On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had four meetings - with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies), Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain Institute).

Doug Schoen filed FARA documents showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) - in part to arrange these meetings.

Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It is unknown how many meetings took place.

Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Schoen helped Mr. Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal reported how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko - a political rival of Yanukovych - from jail.

The relationship between Mr. Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.

A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATOs PR agency the Atlantic Council, were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives, and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the "Deep State" is, and praised the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist Government of Ukraine.

On 6 October 2019, Helmer headlined "UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH VICTOR PINCHUK IS PUTTING HIS MONEY ON JOE BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT AT $40,000 PER MONTH - THAT IS $3,000 MORE PER MONTH THAN BURISMA WAS PAYING HUNTER BIDEN". He reported:

Joe Bidens campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington,D.C. by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).

This follows several years of attempts by Mr. Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Donald Trumps lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and with John Bolton, Trumps National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts failed.

Mr. Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount of money is substantially greater than Bidens son Hunter Biden was paid by Mr. Pinchuks Ukrainian rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai, Mr. Bidens New York front company.

Mr. Pinchuks message for the Democratic candidates and United States media, according to Schoens Fox News [4] broadcast in August, is: "Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own frontrunner, Joe Biden."

On November 12th, the New York Times headlined "Ukraines President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin" and reported that Mr. Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EUs and Trump Administrations continuing support for Ukraines Government, so that mr. Zelensky is desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia.

The next day, that newspaper bannered "A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought Russia. Now He is Ready to Embrace It."

This report said: "Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraines most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia." Mr. Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obamas team in Ukraine, no longer is on the United States team under Trump.

A reasonable inference would be that Mr. Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.

Here are some crimes for which Mr. Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:

Allegedly, Mr. Kolomoysky, along with the newly appointed Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, masterminded the 2 May 2014 extermination of perhaps hundreds of people who had been trapped inside Odessas Trade Unions Building after those victims had distributed anti-coup flyers.

Allegedly, Mr. Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015, brought to a board meeting of Ukraines gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which Mr. Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns, in an unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Mr. Kolomoyskys choice to lead the company.

Ukraines President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the pressure from Ukraines bondholders to fire Mr. Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraines biggest bank, PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors accounts and secreted the proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraines taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.) Mr. Zelensky is squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers.

For example, on 10 September 2019, the Financial Times reported that "The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbanks nationalisation would jeopardise its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery of the $5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank." Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obamas Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trumps?

There are others, but those could be starters.

So, both Mr. Kolomoysky and Mr. Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscows protection, though Mr. Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.

Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Barack Obamas entire Ukrainian operation.

That, in turn, would expose Barack Obamas command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation, which Mr. Kolomoyskys co-planner of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov, euphemistically labelled the "Anti Terrorist Operation" or "ATO," to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Mr. Yanukovych.

It could also open up the enormous can of worms that is George Soros, because though Donald Trump does not at all care about corruption in Ukraine (nor should he, since that is a Ukrainian domestic matter and therefore not appropriate and certainly not a matter of United States national-security interest), Mr. Soros himself was quite possibly breaking both national and international laws in his interventions in Ukraine, and possibly also in his related investments or his threats not to invest there.

Not only was he deeply involved in the coup but afterward he was regularly advising Victoria Nuland. Whether even United States of Americas laws against insider-trading were violated should also be considered.

If Mr. Putin offers no helping hand to Mr. Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians?

Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the "States Parties" to the International Criminal Court, so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown Ukraines democratically elected Government could be tried there?

How would Donald Trump be able to immunize himself for such crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria?

How likely is it that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist (such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law?

He, after all, is himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an instance where he benefited from it - never for international lawitself.

Donald Trump is not likely to be the first.

But here is how it could happen:

Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives.

There is not much distance between his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obamas and Joe Bidens.

However, after Trump becomes impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican United States Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Donald Trump to embarrass the Democratic Party profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Bidens boss Barack Obama as having caused the war in Ukraine.

In order for him to do that, however, he would also need to expose the rot of neoconservatism.

Nobody in Washington,D.C. does that, except, perhaps the rebelling Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she is rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party.

Neoconservatism is the uniform foreign-policy ideology of Americas billionaires, both Republican and Democratic, and this is why Washington,D.C. is virtually 100% neocon.

In the United States of America, wealth certainly does not trickle down, but ideology apparently does - and that is not merely neoliberalism but also its international-affairs extension: neoconservatism.

Nonetheless, if a Donald Trump re-election ticket were Trump for President, and Ms Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat anything that the Democrats could put up against it, because Donald Trump would then head a ticket which would remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the perhaps 5% of Democrats who like her.

Only Bernie Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and who is the least-neoconservative member of the United States Senate), would attract some of Ms Gabbards supporters, but he would not be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American politics.

The 2020 United States Presidential contest could just go hog-wild.

However, Americas billionaires probably will not let that happen.

Though there are only 607 of therm, they have enormous powers over the Government, far more than do all other United States of Americans put together.

The United States Supreme Court made it this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision, and the 2010 Citizens United decision.

So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it is extremely unlikely.

The public are too deceived - by Americas Big-Money people.

As the neoconservative Democratic Representative from Vermont, Peter Welch, said in the impeachment hearings, on November 19th:

And you know, I will say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You want to investigate Hunter Biden?

Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you do, do it. Just do not do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That is your job, it is not his.

My goal in these hearings is two things.

One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindmans question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"]. And the second coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy both support, it is not investigations, it is the restoration of democracy in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.

Though Mr. Zelensky had won Ukraines Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the United States had started), Americas Deep State are refusing to allow that - they want to force him to accept more United States-made weapons and more United States training of Ukraines troops in how to use them against its next-door neighbor Russia.

Furthermore, in some respects, Donald Trump is even more neoconservative than President Obama was.

Trump single-handedly nullified Obamas only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.

Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their Government.

President Trump wants them to overthrow their Government.

His plan might succeed. Donald Trumps biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, hates Iranians, and Trump is his man.

On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon. Perhaps Adelson does not require him to hate Russians too.

Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Irans Government, Abdullah MuradoÄŸlu headlined in Turkeys newspaper Yeni Safak, "Bolivias Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Irans Mosaddeg", and he presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too - which had occurred on November 10th - had been a United States operation.

How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine when Trumps own coup against Bolivia is in the news?

America is now a two-Party fascist dictatorship. One criminal United States President will not publicly expose the crimes of another criminal United States President who was his predecessor.

The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump was Americas Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th.

Mr. Sondland was a hotels and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trumps becoming President, Mr. Sondland had had no experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Mr. Sondland donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee"; and, then, a year later, Donald Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Mr. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe" Mr. Zelensky.

Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institutions Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland, testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Mr. Sondland provided no evidence except his opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before the United States House of Representatives", when he said:

Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giulianis requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election-DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

However, in his prior (closed-door) 17 October 2019 testimony to the Senators, he had said (pp. 35-6) that on September 9th:

I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times. This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried hard to address Ambassador Taylors concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."

That "Ambassador Taylor" was William. B. Taylor Jr., a West Point, Army, and NATO neoconservative, whom George W. Bush had made United States Ambassador to Ukraine in 2006-9, and whom Trump, at the suggestion of Trumps neoconservative Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, had appointed to succeed Ambassador Yovanovitch in May.

The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of Americas war to conquer Russia.

Donald Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy, but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or else Americas for withdrawing America from Obama’s war against Russia) suitable reason for Congress to force Trump out of office.

Given that Trump, even in Sondlands account, did say "The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that is even close to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo about anything regarding Ukraine - a policy of Obamas that Trump should instead firmly have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President.

Testimony from his own enemies, whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he had not simply extended Obamas neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable.

But right and wrong will not determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.

This is what happens when billionaires control a country.

It produces the type of foreign policies the countrys billionaires want, rather than what the public actually need.

This is Americas Government, today.

It is drastically different than what Americas Founders had hoped.

Instead of its representing the states equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with proportional representation in the United States House, and instead of yet a third system of the Electoral College for choosing the Governments Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, one-dollar-one-vote - an aristocracy of wealth controlling the entire Government - exactly what the Founders had waged the Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as constituting our Government.

PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings Ranking Minority Member, the neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes, stands for, I close here with his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st, in which he validly described the Democrats scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look deeper to the issues I raise in this article - he dealt here merely with how "shoddy" the case the Democrats had presented was):

Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president Zelensky.

The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It is clear why the Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations.

President Trump had good reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread corruption in that country. President Zelensky, who did not even know aid to Ukraine had been paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the conversation. The aid was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were supposedly being coerced into doing.

Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses have testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different reasons. So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there is no actual misdeed and no one even claiming to be a victim?

The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple slogan, "he got caught." President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something wrong and getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought crime the Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.

I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It is not president Trump who got caught, it is the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack the 2016 election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and lying about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations of the Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise that impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is to the American people.

They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians, and they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee operative, who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly redacting her name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her testimony as a witness in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent years. They got caught.

Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President Trump was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and the president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.

Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules, todays hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee, formerly known as the Intelligence Committee.

Whether the Democrats reap the political benefit they want from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to this country will be long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president? They have pitted Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually believe the entire galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president since the day the American people elected him.

I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so our nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The peoples faith in government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken.

From the Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let us hope they finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a change. In addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican members transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key witnesses that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This rule was not displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it applies to the Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly scheduling an agreed upon time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key witnesses that you have continually blocked from testifying.

I would also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling campaign, the United States government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my staff to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of their memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.

Later that same day, the New York Times headlined "The Impeachment Hearings Revealed a Lot - None of It Great for Trump", and CNN headlined "The public impeachment hearings were a total GOP disaster". The non-mainstream news-medium Zero Hedge instead bannered, "Amid Impeachment Circus, Dems Sneak PATRIOT Act Renewal Past The American People", and reported that the "bill was pushed through with not a single Republican vote." The following day, the AP headlined "Analysis: Mountain of impeachment evidence is beyond dispute" and closed "Asked what the consequences are if Congress allows an American president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival, [Fiona] Hill said simply, -It is a very bad precedent.-"

The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38 countries were asked whether they agree that "You can trust most news most of the time" shows that the United States scores #32 out of the 38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their 2018 edition, that, among Americans, "those who identify on the left (49%) have almost three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the rights alienation from mainstream media has become ever more entrenched." In the 2019 edition, what had been 49% rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires (i.e., mainstream) media are trusted now almost only by liberals. What the media report is considered trustworthy almost only by liberals, in todays America. By 53% to only 9% - an almost 6 to 1 ratio - the skeptics of the billionaires press are Republicans.

Of course, if the media are distrusted, then the nation can not be functioning as a democracy.

But the media will be distrusted if they lie as much as Americas do. Untrusted "news"-media are a sure indication that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media).

In America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to - for examples - Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel).

Liberals trust Americas dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy. Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDRs vision, of a United Nations which would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the United States nor any other country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than by the Republican Party.

And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obamas imperialistic ((anti-FDR) agenda.

President Trump, after all, did not do the coup to Ukraine; President Obama did.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.