Ron Paul summation of Impeachment Tyranny

Former Congressman from Texas Ron Paul nails the crux of the impeachment problem, the fact that the witnesses believe Trump should be impeached for changing the direction of our foreign policy, as if he had no business doing so.

https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2019/11/25/the-real-bombshell-of-the-i...

The Real Bombshell of the Impeachment Hearings

by Ron Paul
Posted on November 26, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who was Fiona Hill’s boss? Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who no doubt agreed that the president has no right to change US foreign policy.

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

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

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity

Ron Paul is a former Republican congressman from Texas. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

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

No matter who the president is the policies remain the same. This is exactly the crux of the impeachment farce. This and the fact that we are not at war with Russia, but we are supporting Ukraine in theirs. But exactly what does congress expect to happen with it? What do they think is the end goal? Taking control of the Donbas region where there is loads of natural gas?

“President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter US foreign policy objectiv

No kidding. Imagine Russia interfering with Mexico and supporting AQ and ISIS and then admitting them into the Russian federation. Letting Ukraine join NATO is going to cause big problems with Russia. And I really wish people would stop saying that Trump put our national security at risk by not arming Ukraine with offensive weapons.

“If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention.”

Imagine the NSC person in Syria saying that about Obama when he didn't attack them after they accused Assad of gassing his people. Instead he worked with Russia on getting all chemical weapons out of Syria. OMG. Barack colluded with Vlad. Stop the presses!

up
0 users have voted.

People are going to be sick for the rest of their lives and the people responsible will pay no price.

Sam thinks she’s a cat.

snoopydawg's picture

up
0 users have voted.

People are going to be sick for the rest of their lives and the people responsible will pay no price.

Sam thinks she’s a cat.

lotlizard's picture

A three-cornered struggle.

So many people who I thought were allies have drifted over to the side of rule by the Unelected.

Personally, I’m still on the side of the Electorate.

But what about the Elected? The right of the (flawed) persons elected (in a, granted, flawed process) to set policy and steer the country?

Many reasons to be unhappy with the Elected person at the pinnacle, but if the Unelected can trample the Elected underfoot, the Electorate will also be trampled under the Unelected’s unchecked power, yes?

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@lotlizard You are summarizing the power of the deep state perfectly.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Like Sondland become Ambassadors. They basically buy their post, in his case making a one million dollar contribution to Trump's Inaugural committee, though he did not support him in the primaries. And apparently Sondland bought the Ambassadorship thinking he could exert some influence on Trump -- which now appears to have been under false pretenses.

Sondland hated the Russians and he wanted military aid to Ukraine to fight the Ruskis, Trump be damned. Seems like Sondland expected a little quid pro quo from Trump and Trump did not deliver like Sondland assumed he would. So a little revenge was in order.

Really interesting article by someone who was a career Foreign Service officer and former Ambassador about how many Ambassadorships are bought and about Sondland. Interestingly, only Warren has pledged to appoint no big donors to Ambassadorships.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52606.htm

up
0 users have voted.