America American Academia American corruption american devolution American Ideals American Left Authoritarianization of America Russia U.S. crisis

WORKING PAPER: The Authoritarianization (Putinization?) of America

by Gordon M. Hahn


As I wrote during the 2016 presidential campaign four years ago, “It is increasingly clear that the United States is in the midst of a great political crisis. The American people – both society and elites – have rejected Americanism. America’s abandonment of its founding principles is ominously on display in the presidential election campaign’s discourse: Lincoln-Douglas it is not. When a population rejects its country’s founding ideals, the survival of a country’s political, social and/or economic order come under threat.” “History shows that a people that wholly rejects its own history, culture and, most of all, its founding ideals, cannot stand. When the Soviet and other peoples lost faith in the false ideals of communism, their countries’ political regimes collapsed.”[1] The gravity of the crisis, which I consider below, should be clearer by now.

Americanism, similar to the much touted idea of ‘American exceptionalism’, encompasses the notion, among others, that the national identity was founded and is rooted and held together not on the basis of a common or predominant nationality, ethnic group or religion nor on devotion to a king, a particular political party or class. Rather, the American national identity has historically been defined by a set of ideas, attitudes, and beliefs surrounding the proper relationship between ‘rulers and the ruled’, limited government, republican governance, political and social equality, and freedom and justice for the individual. Buying into these ideals made one American.

Americanism’s original defining ideals were institutionalized in the Constitution of the United States, which functions as the linchpin for the nations’ core values: representative government; one person, one vote; freedom of religion, speech, and association; trial by a jury of one’s peers; federalism with the bulk of power residing with the states and lower-standing units of government; the separation and balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; and judicial independence and originalist rather activist constitutional interpretation by the courts. In sum, America’s essence and exceptionalism as a nation and state lies in its constitution and the people’s allegiance to, and vigilance over it. Over recent decades, especially under the Barack Obama administration, America’s elite and people have gradually lost their knowledge, fealty, and desire to uphold this original America idea.

American society has lost both its private and public or ‘civic virtue’. The founders, for example John Adams, insisted in 1798: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” His brother, Sam, noted: “While the People are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their Virtue they will be ready to surrender their Liberties to the first external or internal Invader…. If Virtue & Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslaved.”

By virtue, the American revolutionary generation meant several things. A personal virtue involved disinterestedness, knowledge, politeness, generosity, punctuality and so on. A public virtue involved engagement with society and politics through civic interaction, discussion, and consideration. Voting was but one manifestation of engagement and arguably the least important. Through study, civic discussion and consideration with equally virtuous fellow citizens the right conduct, action, and vote would emerge.

The two virtues were interdependent. American historian of the revolution, Gordon S. Wood wrote: “(F)or man in the eighteenth century, virtue now flowed from the citizen’s participation in society, not in government, which the most enlightened increasingly saw as the source of the evils in the world. ‘Society,’ Thomas Paine said, is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness. The former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.’ It was society, not politics, that bred the new domesticated virtue of politeness. Mingling in drawing rooms, clubs, coffeehouses and even counting houses—partaking of the innumerable interchanges of the daily comings and goings of modern life, including those of the marketplace—created affection, fellow feeling, credit, and trust that bound people together in the natural harmony of the social world that was as marvelous to the eighteenth century as the discovery of the force of gravity in the physical world.”[2] Such a people would produce a similarly virtuous – that is disinterested – elite and political leadership that would honor and maintain the principles of constitutional republican government, the sovereignty of the people, and a more polite and erudite political discourse.

Americans, both rulers and rules, are now a far less virtuous, even largely non-virtuous people. Rather than reading history, poetry or philosophy and mingling in coffeehouses to discuss the human condition, commerce and politics, they sit alone at Starbuck’s or home reading ten-word tweets, surfing social networks for the ‘news’, or watching sports and pornography unaware of who their leaders are, no less what they are up to. Americans no longer know their history or constitution, and few have a desire to.

This ‘virtuousnessless’ and ignorance is compounded by the social consequences of the information age. Anonymity and the distance of impersonal interaction through the Internet has revolutionized our discourse, and the result is a decline of virtuous politeness – putting things mildly. There is a lack of basic civility and mounting levels of incivility, antagonism, hatred and increasingly even violence. This is occurring on an unprecedented scale between Democrats and Republicans, whites and non-whites, men and women, gay and straight, the religious and secularists. 

Nothing demonstrates the degeneration of the country more than the degeneracy on display during the period of our presidential campaigns. In 2016 it was replete with race riots, assassinations of police, attacks on citizens and the Republican party headquarters in North Carolina, and fights at Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump”s speeches provoked by paid thugs organized by operatives close to the Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton, including the husband of a Democratic party congresswoman. Meanwhile, the media, intended by the founding fathers as a key element of freedom of speech and information for educative political discourse, focused almost exclusively on scandal and that of just one of the candidates. Trump’s sexual exploits, real and manufactured, became the main subject matter of America’s political campaign discourse. The nature of Americans’ purulent preoccupations was further reflected in what may be the turning point in the presidential campaign – the discovery of a new batch of Hillary’s emails – came from an FBI search for child pornography on the computer of a former US congressman and husband of Clinton’s top aide, who was charged with soliciting sex from a minor over the Internet.

Both sides of the aisle were (and remain) monumentally corrupt not just morally but politically as well. Candidate Clinton took campaign and other contributions from foreign states that support terrorism and brutally repress women while posing as a foreign policy hawk and champion of women’s rights. On the other side of the aisle, Trump engaged in the worst forms of provocative rhetoric, engaged in corrupt business practices, and ran a nasty campaign. One wanted to provide free higher education and to create state medical insurance system that requires citizens to buy insurance and; the other, running as an alleged conservative, wants to force companies to return to the U.S. and carry out a 1 trillion dollar stimulus plan that would outstrip his leftist would-be predecessor. Matter in the 2020 presidential campaign, as I demonstrate below, reached a new nadir of political and legal corruption, as I discuss herein.

But a society’s elite can be little better than the society from which it comes. But the today’s American elite is further corrupted, indeed entranced by the dual attractions of massive power and wealth offered by a global empire run from Washington. Thus, the government openly lies to the people about both domestic and foreign affairs, and officials openly boast about doing so. This is leading to not just the collapse of the two-party hegemonic political system (which may be a good thing) but an overall rejection, destabilization and radicalization of our republican politics.

In such a country, institutions themselves are bound to degenerate. Thus, America’s constitutional exceptionalism is in decay. The Justice Department, the courts, law enforcement and media have become politicized, serving the interests of neither the state nor the people. Intelligence agencies tap the communications of allied leaders and steal and store citizens’ “personal effects” in the form of emails and telephone records. The American president now has the power to engage in drone attacks against alleged jihadi terrorists abroad, which includes the authority to kill American citizens so suspected.

A centralization of power within the federal government, now dominated by the almost unlimited power and administrative-bureaucratic dictates of the president, is only exceeded by the degree to which the federal government as a whole has emasculated local and state government in America today. The degree of concentration of power in Washington may warrant nomenclature referencing another hyper-centralized former federative system: Moscow on the Potomac.

Thus, this great American crisis is one of our own making, not Russia’s, not China’s. It is a consequence of an arrogance, hubris, and incaution about the world and ourselves born of the victory over communism abroad. For three decades we Americans have lectured Russians and others about the importance of democracy and the rule of law and the need to reject authoritarian rule. Alas, we have been lecturing others and often making them pay a heavy price for failing to comply with our democratic standards for naught, as we undermined them at home by allowing radicals among us to grow communism at home insinuated into the American polity through an perverse obsession by angry intellectuals and minority groups out not for equal opportunity but privilege and ultimately for revenge and – as we will soon being seeing more than we have hitherto – blood.

While we lectured, our own democracy and rule of law were being subjected to authoritarianization. America’s democracy is being undermined by many of the very same people who championed democracy abroad. For example, for Russia’s alleged failure to sufficiently democratize in the space of but a few years after the Soviet collapse of perhaps the most totalitarian regime in history, US President Bill Clinton expanded NATO (though his real reason for doing so was to garner defense industry financing of Democrat Party coffers and the votes of the Illinois’s large Polish diaspora and to cover up his own patriotism deficit caused by his draft-dodging). Since then the U.S has done everything it can to fund democracy-promotion in Russia’s neighborhood in an effort to pressure Russia into re-democratization and contain the threat it does not pose, sparking crises with Russia along its borders. The obsession with countering Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged threat to America has created a new cold war, driven Moscow into increasingly powerful China’s arms, and led to sanctions that are helping to cripple Western and non-Western economies already burdened by the COVID crisis. In the new world split apart, America now confronts many hostile forces while it is crippled by enoumous defense and security expenditures and bizarre forms of social spending, creating a mountain of foreign debt. It is an American version of the Soviet ‘guns and butter’ overextension sans the excuse for collapse provided by an enormously ineffective centralized socialist economy. The United States have had everything they needed to maintain liberty, capitalist wealth, and relative equal opportunity for all its citizens, but imperial ambitions and largely articifically induced indentitarian schisms mitigated against the dream.  

In writing about the authoritarianization of America, I was tempted, as a Russia observer professionally, to use the term ‘Putinization’ rather than ‘authoritarianization’ in the title of this paper, but Putin is hardly the only or even worst authoritarian leader in the world, as I have written numerous times. Moreover, a headline of Putinization might needlessly bring a certain element to read this article misled by the term, which might give the impression that I have in mind Trump’s supposed Putinization of America, Trump’s alleged collusion with Putin, Trump’s supposed ‘nationalist populism,’ Trump’s supposed corruption, Trump’s alleged plans to falsify election results. Authoritarianization is perhaps more precise term than Putinism as it admits of our American, but increasingly Western-wide minority identitarianism verging on fascism combined with a new Marxism-Leninism popular in American academia. ‘Putinization’ is a kind of authoritarianization, perhaps, but it has been supported by those who have screamed Putin the loudest and most incessantly for four long years: The Democratic party, minority identitarians, various Marxist-communist and global oligarchic allies, and even Ukrainians and the Ukrainian-American diaspora who would destroy freedom for the sake of NATO expansion, control of global markets, and the establishment of global government.

As I show below, Russian, Ukraine and Ukrainian-Americans have played no minor role in the intensification of corruption in the corridors of American power. Our founding fathers understood that one of the weak points of republics, in their view, was vulnerability to corruption introduced by foreign states.[3] They warned us against the grave danger of “conspiracies, intrigues, and corruptions” caused in the main by the wish of foreign powers to achieve undue influence within America’s leadership.[4] But it takes two to tango, and Americans are proving now to be premier dancers.

Therefore, this is a very American story in the 21st century’s globalizing world. George Washington’s and Madison’s worst nightmares have come to fruition; ‘foreign entanglements’ and “fighting a foreign enemy” – i.e., overinvolvement in global affairs politico-militarily – have undermined freedom at home. The neo-liberals, leftists, and big tech have melded with the military-industrial complex and oligarchic globalists to form an intolerant, self-righteous liberal-leftist cabal opposed not just to authoritarianism but to social traditionalism and even the traditional American values of constitutionalism, republicanism, and liberty. Despite the disdain with which Putin is held by the left-liberal half of America’s political spectrum, the liberal-left’s chief organ, the Democrat Party, is riven with corruption and implements policies that mirror those chosen by their Muscovite identititarian nemesis in the early-mid-2000s. Late’s take a look at the ‘Putinization’ – really the authoritarianzation – of the America and global liberal-left, in particular the U.S. Democrat Party (DP).

‘Super-presidentialism’: Obama’s Imperial Presidency

In response to 9/11 the Bush administration had legalized the theft and storage of the citizenry’s sacrosanct “personal effects” in the form of emails and telephone records of American citizens. Under his successor in the White House, Barack Obama, the decay of America’s constitutional exceptionalism accelerated precipitously. Obama repeatedly was able to circumvent and/or control the legislative and judicial branches in part by establishing new anti-constitutional practices and constitutional interpretations. The Justice Department, the courts, law enforcement and media were politicized, serving the interests of neither the state nor the people but increasingly those of Obama’s DP. The Obama administration instituted a watered-down version of Putin’s ‘super-presidential’ system (actually introduced under Yeltsin but strengthened by Putin) or what liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called Obama’s “imperial presidency.” Intelligence agencies tapped the communications of journalists, allied leaders, and opposition presidential candidates (see below). The American president now has the power to engage in drone attacks against alleged jihadi terrorists abroad, which includes the authority to kill American citizens so suspected.

Thus, the leading liberal, pro-DP legal scholar Jonathan Turley characterizes Obama’s system as an “imperial presidency” and views the record of presidential aggrandizement and prerogative in recent decades, especially under Obama, as stunning:

“The shift of power to the presidency certainly did not start with President Barack Obama. To the contrary, this trend has been gaining ground for decades. But it has accelerated under Obama, who has succeeded to a degree that would have made Richard Nixon blush. Indeed, Obama may be the president Nixon always wanted to be.” …

“What is fascinating is that Nixon was largely unsuccessful in accomplishing this dream of a presidency with robust and largely unlimited powers. Indeed, many of the unchecked powers claimed by Nixon became the basis for articles in his impeachment and led to his resignation on Aug. 9, 1974.

“Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an imperial presidency with unilateral powers and privileges. But in 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition.[5]

In other words, Obama got away with that for which Nixon was forced from power. Shockingly, Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, would be impeached for absolutlely nothing in one of many Obama- and Democrat-driven attempts to overthrow him.

A centralization of power in the federal government and within the federal government in the executive branch lays the foundation for “unlimited power” and the administrative-bureaucratic dictates of the president. Recall Putin’s ‘exective vertical of power”? Like Putin, Americans, accelerated under Obama, have emesaculated local and state power in favor of the federal government. The degree of concentration of power in Washington may warrant nomenclature referencing another hyper-centralized former federative system: Moscow on the Potomac. The separation of executive, legislative, and judicial power and the attendant checks and balances have been undermined by the politicization of the courts under acitivist judges, the refusal of federal courts to hear cases involving separation of power issues, the creation of de facto single-party systems in many states, and at the federal level the usurpation of the legislative function by administrative and presidential apparati through departmental regulations and executive orders.

As Turley notes, Obama intensified warrantless surveillance programs to a degree only Nixon’s fantasies might have envisioned, including implemeting a program that seized the communications of nearly every American citizen. In terms of war powers, whereas Nixon was impeached in part because of his unauthorized bombing of Cambodia, Obama declared rather than attempted to finesse his right to define ‘war’ and thereby monopolize the power to declare it; one that sits squarely in Congress, according to a nicety known as the U.S. Constitution. As Turley notes: “(t)hat position effectively converts the entire provision in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (‘Congress shall have power to … declare War’) into a discretionary power of the president.” (Moreover he did so and bombed Libyan ground forces in violation of a UN resolution, which authorized a ‘no-fly zone’ only.) Nixon ordered a burglary to gather evidence against Daniel Ellsberg and perhaps even his incapacitation by White House “plumbers’ for his leak of the Pentagon Papers and was threatened with impeachment and forced to resign the presidency for ordering or at least covering up of a break-in into the DP headquarters, Obama claimed presidential authority in the war on jihadism to murder any U.S. citizen without a specific accusation, indictment, or conviction, even when he lacked “clear evidence (of) a specific attack” being planned.[6] Obama administration instigated twice the number of prosecutions against whistleblowers than all previous U.S. presidents taken together and put two journalists under surveillance.

Although Nixon was charged with repeatedly obstructing or misleading congressional investigators during Watergate. The Obama administration refused repeatedly to give evidence requested by oversight committees in a variety of scandals. When Congress voted to proceed to charge against Attorney General Eric Holder with criminal contempt, Holder’s own Justice Department blocked it. When Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper lied to Congress on surveillance programs and later acknowledged so, the Obama administration refused to fire or even investigate Clapper for perjury. Obama’s administration even was accused of searching Senate computers in investigating the CIA and attempting to intimidate congressional investigators. In addition, the administration frequently circumvented Congress to make unilateral changes to or suspend federal laws by executive order or administrative fiat. For example, when Congress recently refused to pass the DREAM Act to change immigration laws to protect potentially millions of people in the country illegally from deportation, he simply issued an executive order – what Russians would call an ukaz – instituting precisely the same measures. Obama ukazy were ordered in health care, drug enforcement, online gambling, and other areas. Turley concluded that on the basis of Obama’s new powers, he had reduced Congress to “an almost decorative element in governance – free to approve but not to block presidential demands.”[7] Minus the word ‘almost,’ this describes precisely the role of Russian State Duma and Federation Council under Putin’s super-presidential system.

Even Congress’s power of the purse was hollowed out. When the Republican-controlled Congress opposed Obama’s health care preferences which effectively began the nationalization of 16 percent of the American economy, Obama simply moved $454 million in funds from the purpose designated in law by Congress to his own purpose. When he declared effectively his presidential monopoly on the power to declare war in the Libyan civil war, Obama simply spent roughly a billion dollars on an undeclared war never funded by Congress. The out-of-control executive branch combined with an out-of-control chief executive is a most dangerous combination. Obama laid the foundation and gave us an ugly preview of what is to come in the American devolution continues.[8]

Statization of the Economy, Polity, and Culture

Increasingly, the size and functions of the American state, while becoming less republican, are also expanding. In doing so, the state is deeply penetrating society, rendering it less civil. The penetration by the state apparatus of society is a key feature of authoritarian regimes. When such penetration becomes complete or nearly so, we can speak of not just an authoritarian system but of a totalitarian system. This is evident in penetration of the economy, polity, and culture.

Statization of the Economy

A cornerstone policy of the Obama presidency was the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as ‘Obama Care.’. Health care, pharmaceuticals and other medical- and health related industries comprise approximately one-sixth of the U.S. private economy. Any American with or without health insurance has the right to medical care under law, and almost all citizens who desire health insurance can afford to purchase it or receive it through their employer. Those not so benefited can take advantage of free or cheap health care provided at local clinics and other institutions. Many jobs come with health care plans included. Most Americans were satisfied with their plans before Obamacare, and this is why Obama stated some 15-20 times in campaigning for the ACA’s adoption by Congress that all Americans with health insurance policies before Obama Care’s passage would be able to keep their existing plan and their doctor.[9] In fact, many Americans – the author who you are reading being one – who could not keep a previous plan and doctor. My plan was terminated, and my doctor was not included in any of the new plans that I could afford. Americans were also told that health insurance prices would fall on average of $2,500, but they actually rose. Mine did. These were only two of the many deceptions the Obama administration deployed in gaining passage.  

Besides the need to minimize public resistance to the ACA bill, a reason for the lies was that Obama Care was intended not as an end in itself but as a stealth first step to introduce a state, ‘single-payer’ health care system of the kind opposed by a majority of Americans. One ACA drafter acknowledged the Obama adiminstration lied about the details of Obama Care, because the American people’s “stupidity” risked its successful passage in Congress.[10] Obama Care established an additional layer of bureaucracy between the patient and his doctor. If before the patients had to deal with the sufficiently bureaucratic and cumbersome insurance companies, they now had to deal with his or hers new state management structure organizing the market for medical insurance plans that intervenes in decisions made by insurance companies and doctors, helps design insurance plans, sets their prices, and increasingly began to monitor the health habits of the insured.

More importantly, Obama Care requires that every person in the country purchase health insurance or pay a fee, which is actually an increase in one’s income taxes. Even young people, who may not need to make a significant health expenditure for decades into adulthood must purchase health insurance. Moreover, the policy has clear political motivation. The insurance purchase mandate boosts insurance company profits; hence their support for the bill. By making medical insurance available to those 15 million people in the country illegally, who by definition do not pay taxes, working legal Americans are forced to subsidize illegals’ health insurance policies. Obama and other administration officials said illegals would not be able to enter the system, but this proved false. Moreover, the legally mandated right to health care – not health insurance but health care – raised the cost of medical services and thus of insurance policies as well. As a result, in tandem with the DP’s refusal to stop illegal immigration and, to the contrary, provide various benefits to illegals, it has created an illegal constituency for itself, which it continues to subsidize at taxpayers’ expense. This is why many, especially Democrat-controlled states do not require proof of citizenship to vote. Thus, the Obama administration not only moved to statize the economy, but it undermined the rule of law and expanded the universe of politically motivated expenditures of tax revenues and DP-friendly constituencies.

The disturbing pattern the use of tax dollars to fund pro-DP organizations and causes began in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton but reached new heights during the Obama administration. One example in support of the DP has already been mentioned: the use of the educational system and state universities to inculcate youth in attitudes that support DP policy positions and to work in DP-allied organizations and DP-controlled government offices in order to continue rigging the system against Republicans and other non-liberals, non-leftists. Partially government-funded public television (the Public Broadcasting Company or PBS) and radio (National Public Radio or NPR) are openly supportive of the DP and its policy positions and virulently hostile to the Republican Party and other conservatives. For example, they refused to cover credible allegations of Joseph Biden’s illegal use of the vice presidency to enrich himself or the unprecedented electoral fraud in the 2020 presidential elections, among hundreds of other issues they cover or ignore based on whether it will help or hurt DP prospects and went so far as to issue a statement that the issue was a fake one.

The DP Obama administration engaged in the same sort of government-business collusion to bad economic effect but to a political effect it hoped would be good for the DP. The Obama administration famously invested $80 billion in ‘green technology,’ with its keystone project being a California solar energy start-up called Solyndra. A decade ago, when on rare occasions the Washington Post would report negatively on DP activity, it concluded after investigating internal documents of workings of “the upper levels of the Obama administration” and “politically connected clean-technology investors”: “Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials.” “The administration, which excluded lobbyists from policymaking positions, gave easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration, the records show. Many of those investors had given to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Some took jobs in the administration and helped manage the clean-energy program.” Part of Obama’s Silicon Valley oligarchic network, Solyndra, financed by US taxpayers, collapsed, leaving the same US taxpayers out of $535 million. As Solyndra collapsed in September 2010, WP’s investigation found no concern for laid off workers and wasted taxpayer funds in Obama, his administration, and their or Solyndra’s donors only for the “political fallout.” Specifically, DOE asked Solyndra executives to delay company layoffs until after the November 2010 congressional elections, as investors and company execs flooded Obama’s administration, which they called the “Bank of Washington” for more taxpayer cash.[11]

Another example of using US taxpayer dollars as an administrative resource to serve DP political interests is the Obama administration’s post-crisis ‘bailout’ of the US automobile industry. The political favoritism deployed further undermined the rule of law and at best did nothing to improve the auto industry’s performance. Although agreeing that Chapter 11 bankruptcy was probably the best practice for the ailing automakers, GM and Chrysler, the Obama Administration took over the reorganization process, directing all major decisions and inserting $80 billion in taxpayer funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (which Congress had limited to stabilizing the banking sector) into the companies, claiming its actions ‘saved’ 1.5 million jobs. In reality, the traditional bankruptcy practice under Chapter 11 would have preserved almost all working places without the government intervention. The actual purpose was to convince Americans about the benefits of government management of business and to funnel over $25 billion in taxpayer dollars to the always DP-allied United Autoworkers (UAW) labor union, in pay and benefits. The Obama Administration’s “Auto Task Force” decided which projects to close, which dealerships to fund and not to fund, and how automakers should invest in production. It handed out relief packages overwhelmingly to dealerships owned by DP supporters and it violated the rights of unsecured investors, who were forced by means of legal and political pressures to accept small, partial repayments of loans made to GM, while UAW received $26.5 billion more than it would have had under a normal bankruptcy process.[12] At the same time, GM was required to maintain all union personnel on the payroll, regardless of whether there was work to do or not, and continue above-market pay and benefits to all workers. GM also was required to invest more than a billion dollars in an electric car project, the ‘Volt’ which had a propensity to self-immolate, was unprofitable, and quickly was removed from production. In these ways, the rule of law was undermined by the politicization of business activity carried out by government. Of course, the automobile industry is based in Detroit where much of the massive election fraud in the recent presidential election occurred (see below).

The DP has a similarly deep symbiotic relationship with Silicon Valley’s corporate leaders–America’s new robber barons or, to use the Russia analogy, oligarchs. These are the Soroses, Gates’s, Zuckerbergs, Kaisers, Brins, and Alperovitches. They are America’s equivalent of Russia’s Kovalchuks, Rotenbergs, Abramoviches, Deripaskas, and Prigozhins. The Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens are America’s Putins, Medvedevs, Sechins, and Xi Jinpings. The differences (degree of centralized power, limited media pluralism, and free or unfree elections) are little more pronounced than the similarities (attempts to undermine political and media pluralism and deploy the state and office to enrich themselves and their domestic and sometimes foreign allies). All are part of a global elite to one extent or another that fights over money and power AMONG THEMSELVES across the international stage and deploys smaller countries and innocent civilians to pay in treasure and blood. Google was Obama’s biggest corporate donor in 2008: $485,961 in donations, compared to only $20,600 for John McCain.[13] Google has received regulatory kickbacks for years in return for financing DP political campaigns, most notably Obama’s presidential campaigns.[14] Internet tech companies, including Google and Twitter, contributed more than 50 high-tech engineers to Obama’s second presidential bid, creating in-house technology and analytics departments and dominating the Chicago headquarters.[15] This is an inevitable result of state capitalism’s marriage between business and state. The consequences of this and their bad results of state-based economics are far reaching, as the ability of America’s oligarchs to tilt the information space and then distort the turnout through Zuckerberg’s ballot harvesting scheme to fix the 2020 presidential election, along with numerous other illegal activities, in favor of DP candidate Biden (see below). These are just the most recent manifestations of the state’s deepening penetration into the American polity on a scale unknown even compared with the pre-PAC and PAC eras.

Statizing the Polity and Tilting the Playing Field through ‘Administrative Resources’

The larger the state, the more functions it performs, the more it can deploy various ‘administrative resources,’ to use a term developed by Russians in regard to corrupt, authoritarian Russian political practice. Using such resources, the polity can be reshaped to the benefit of the powers that be. Various financial enticements (grants, investments, etc.), threats to withhold such enticements, taxation and tax investigation, legal pressure, regulation or the lifting of said, licensing or refusal thereof, law enforcement inestigations, and the like are resources that can be deployed in a partisan manner. An example of the use of administrative resources – a Russian term for the untoward use of state funds to support one political party and partisan cronies – is the Obama administration’s use of funds garnered from the big banks’ settlements in the 2007-2008 ‘mortgage-induced’ economic crisis – a crisis sparked in reality by the Clinton administration’s laws (Frank-Dodd) requiring banks to provide mortgage loans to disadvantaged minority buyers at far below market rates through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, forcing banks to take on unsustainable burdens – to fund revolutionary and partisan organizations such as the National Council of The (Hispanic) Race or La Raza (recently renamed UnidosUS), the Urban League, and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC). La Raza received at least $1.5 million from the Obama’s bank settlement funds, say congressional researchers. This a group that has supported the return of parts of the southwest to Mexico, illegal immigration, welfare benefits and even driver’s licenses for ‘undocumented’ illegal Latino immigrants. The liberal NCRC, which received at least $2.6 million in bank settlement funds from Obama-era mortgage suits, mobilized opposition to Trump administration tax-reform proposals and helped to block efforts to privatize mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because this would “deepen the racial wealth gap.” The African-American lobbying organization, the Urban League garnered at least $1.2 million in bank-settlement funds. The big’ bank settlement funds were supposed to go first to the victims of the financial collapse and then to the American people as a whole through the US Treasury Department not to special interest groups close to the administration’s favorite political party’s allies. According to the The New York Post, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau still requires financial institutions it prosecutes to contribute to funds to community organizing groups. The Bureau’s now-$170 million-plus Civil Penalty Fund has channeled almost $30 million to “consumer advocacy” groups.[16] Former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch while in office pressured major corporations to make large donations to leftist organizations like UnidosUS/La Raza and NeighborWorks America during settlement negotiations in exchange for ending banking, environmental, civil-rights, and other federal lawsuits.[17]

An October 2016 Government Accountability Institute uncovered how Obama’s Justice Department built ‘socialism in one country’, having “instituted a system that provides significant funding for nonprofit ‘community organizers’ through a pattern of extortive lawsuits. This system, wherein appointed attorneys can legally extract money from the private sector and redistribute the funds to third-party organizations outside of the appropriations process, shows an unprecedented and extraordinary disregard for Congressional authority.”[18] One beneficiary was the pro-socialist non-profit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA), which received funding to support mortgages that might not otherwise be granted and registered their own beneficiaries to vote—the overwhelming majority of who, of course would register as Democrat.[19]

Despite all of its support for left-wing political organizations and businesses using tax-payer dollars, the Obama administration was loath that any federal funds went to any traditional Christian religious organization or voter rights’ groups tied to the Tea party. To the contrary, deploying another administrative resurce, Obama set the IRS to harass hundreds of conservative voter organizations, forcing a lawsuit and an eventual mea culpa from and the payment of settlements by the U.S. tax service to the oppressed groups after, of course, the Obama administration was no more.[20]

Under the Obama administration the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funneled – essentially laundered – funds not just to pro-DP and other anti-Republican Party (RP) groups, but to anti-republican, anti-market, socialist and anarchist revolutionary groups, closer obviously to the DP than the RP ideologically. Obama’s USAID funded foundations of corporate-oligarchic DP allies, which openly fund violent and terrorist Marxist-Leninist street organizations.[21] For example, the US government under Obama funded the left-wing global oligarch George Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF), which funds The Tides Foundation and numerous other organizations that in turn would fund the Marxist, reverse racist, black nationalist Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization. George Soros is the Parvus of today. Alexander Parvus, born Israel Helphand, was potential heir to his father’s vast tea trading empire and used his wealth to finance Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik Party, and the Socialist-Revolutionary Party—the three forces that made the Russian revolution and Bolshevik coup of 1917. Since money is fungible, US funds going to any organization financing BLM (or the even more violent Antifa) would mean that the American government under Obama funded authoritarian/totalitarian insurrection against the US constitution and American democracy.

In 2017 thirty-two pages of records from the Justice Department acquired through a May 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. State Department and USAID showed $8.8 million of USAID funds were sent through its Civil Society Project to fund Soros’ “East West Management Institute” through USAID’s “Justice for All” campaign in 2016.[22] In the same year, oligarch Soros’s OSF gave $650,000 in Opportunities Fund support to invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of BLM. As early as the August 2014 Ferguson race riots, Soros-linked organizations, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) and the Organization for Black Struggle (OBS), advertised for paid protesters in Ferguson. In May 2015 a list of over 80 groups and individuals was posted on Twitter of the paid Ferguson protesters via Weasel Zippers.[23] Again, since funds are fungible, USAID can be considered to have laundered money to U.S. protesters, often acting violently to support the DP’s reverse racism agenda that accusing all white Americans of being ‘white supremacists’ and all U.S. institutions as ‘institutionally racist.’ The Soros-OSF decision to bankroll the subversive and violent Marxist BLM organization was approved “per board consensus” and appears to have had as its goal the shifting of political power. A leaked document covers a later board meeting and praises the success of the plan: “Leaders of Black Lives Matter and The Movement for Black Lives worked to influence candidate platforms during the 2016 primary season. This came alongside the recent acknowledgement by political strategists that African-American voters may be much more pivotal to the 2016 general election than previously forecasted.”[24] In 2018, Soros’s OSF granted $279,860 to Release Leads, a UK group organizes public speaking events featuring BLM in the UK speakers.[25]

In 2020, OSF donated $33 million to organizations that have worked with Black Lives Matter or worked to ‘raise awareness’ during the Ferguson-related protests. Also in 2020, on the eve of the party conventions at the peak of the presidential campaign, Soros announced  $220 million in spending to achieve racial equality in America, “a huge financial undertaking” that “will immediately reshape the landscape of Black political and civil rights organizations,” according to the New York Times. The beneficiaries included the Black Voters Matter Fund, Repairers of the Breach (founded by the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II of the Poor People’s Campaign), and “more established Black civil rights organizations” such as the Equal Justice Initiative, founded by the civil rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson and depicted in the 2019 movie “Just Mercy.” The remaining $70 million went toward local grants for “criminal justice reform” and “civic engagement opportunities.” In connection with the announcement, OSF president Patrick Gaspard hinted at the ‘revolutionary’ import of the times: “Now, he said, is “the moment we’ve been investing in for the last 25 years.”[26] It is important to stress that BLM cooperated with the DP to support Biden in the 2020 election in many ways that still need to be investigated and has since demanded to be “rewarded” for its support, since “Black people won this election.”[27]

The Obama administration’s funding also helped Soros finance radical leftist, former US terrorists. Drug dealer, alleged child molester, and convicted perjurer, forger and Indiana Speedway Bomber (who is also believed to have played a role in the assassination of a grandmother), Brett Kimberlin, spent 17 years in prison, started a “non-profit dubbed” called “Justice Through Music” (JTM). Since at least 2005 JTM has been funded by Soros’ Tides Foundation, Barbara Streisand, and other liberal leftists. JTM seeks to foster “social justice” and combat “Republican voter fraud.” Kimberlin then founded a group called “Velvet Revolution,” which supported the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ (OWS) movement, which Soros also helped fund. The velvet nature of Kimberlin’s revolution are in some doubt, given the violent nature of much of OWS and that any blogger, who who has publicized the truth about Kimberlin has been subject to vicious attack by either Kimberlin or his supporters, including suffering death threats, loss of jobs, and lawsuits–over 100 frivolous lawsuits.[28]

At the same time, the Ford Foundation, key members of whom are Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris, poured nearly $2 billion into groups that have the stated goal of “disrupting systems to advance social justice,” as listed in its grant database. Another Ford member is Kamala’s sister Maya Harris, Kamala’s ex-campaign chairwoman and former vice president of the Ford Foundation. Biden’s senior advisor, Cristóbal Alex, served as the program director of the Ford Foundation during the Obama years. Other top Obama’s top staffers are now top Ford Foundation staffers, including Taara Rangarajan, Ford’s current chief of staff and an Obama national security advisor from 2013-2016, after having served as special assistant to Susan Rice during the Obama-Clinton coverup of the Benghazi terrorist attack, virtualized as a protest against an Internet movie. Xavier de Souza Briggs, Obama’s OMB associate director, is also now top brass at the Ford Foundation.[29] In late 2016, the Ford Foundation gave funding amounting to $200,000 to the communist World Workers’ Party to create the Southern Vision Alliance (SVA) that would members who protested the 2020 Republican National Convention and carried out in Durham, North Carolina one of the first of the illegal dismantlings of historic monuments at the time in the country. Member-activists were arrested and charged for rioting and property damage and were defended in court by lawyers from another Ford grantee organization: the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ). Another grantee of $1.1 million, the Dream Defenders group, pursues the release of criminals from prison and the “end to the Capitalist system in the United States,” according to its now-scrubbed web page. Social media have shown Marxist activists campaigning for Democrat mayors, state attorneys, and prosecutors in Florida who promise to terminate the rule of law by ending cash bail, defunding the police, and freeing criminals from prisons.[30]

The Obama schemes were not limited to building socialism and undermining peace and the rule of law in the US. Its administrative resources and US taxpayers’ dollars were used to help build socialism worldwide. U.S. taxpayer funds have also been used to help the fund work carried out by left-wing DP funder and billionaire Soros and OSF, which helps build a global liberal-socialist network to support DP causes both in the US and abroad and finances the DP and more leftist forces in the US. Moreover, the records showed that the State Department gave Soros’ OSF “direct input” for its Albania program, including in reviewing applications for funding. Both a USAID report and an OSF spokesperson falsely claimed that the public affairs section in the U.S. Embassy in Tirana received no funds from or provided any to Soros’s OSF. However, records made public in the FOIA acquisition showed that USAID funded OSF work with radical groups in Albania.[31] Also, the U.S. Embassy in Tirana had in fact sponsored two surveys along with billionaire’s OSF to measure Albanians’ “knowledge, support, and expectations on justice reform.”[32]

Having established the USAID-Soros tie, we can see that Obama’s USAID also became a funder of questionable activities around the world. Under Obama and the radical leftists he appointed, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) began promoting abroad policies on which we Americans still have found no consensus on and which have no demonstrable U.S. foreign or national security benefits tour country. Moreover, in doing so USAID teamed up in many countries with groups funded by financier George Soros, the world’s 22nd wealthiest man according to Forbes. The self-designated ‘philanthropist’ Soros is actually a currency speculating 21st century version of the Bolsheviks’ Parvus, has done much more to interfere in US politics than any Vladimir Putin, and destabilized numerous countries through currency speculation and his own peculiar brand of social engineering. As the Heritage Foundation demonstrates, USAID and Soros promote transnational governance subverting national sovereignty and sparking political divisions within society over economic and social structure as well as foreign policy. USAID and Soros have pressured still traditionalist societies to adopt a leftist, often far leftist agenda, including:

  • transgender rights, same-sex marriage.[33]
  • legalization of prostitution worldwide.[34]
  • open-ended legalization of abortion (Ireland, Mexico, and Poland).[35]
  • decriminalize drugs (Indonesia).[36]
  • promote a peace accord with narco-Marxist rebels in Colombia that the citizens of that country rejected in a referendum.[37]
  • framing Israel as a gross violator of human rights.[38]
  • training foreign and U.S. citizens in street “activism,” “civic engagement,” and “mobilization” (Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Macedonia, and elsewhere).[39]

This latter form of U.S. ‘assistance,’ aiding and abetting public protest, is a driver of political polarization and destabilization (as the U.S. Marine Corps University Journal and other US sources openly acknowledge) and often violent revolution; a policy I have described as the “multiple-use technology” of “democracy-promotion” that loads the revolver of revolution and allows local circumstances determine when and how the trigger of regime transformation is pulled.[40] USAID’s ally Soros has been active in fomenting unrest in the U.S. as well based on the same ‘load-the-revolver’ principle and then some.

Moreover still, Obama funneled A $200,000 grant to an Al Qaida-affiliated group in Sudan even though it had been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department years earlier as a terrorist-financing organization.[41] One can add to this the more important Obama record of supporting extremist groups in order to achieve foreign policy goals he set: weapons to jihadi groups in Syria leading to the rise of ISIS in Syria-Iraq, support for the Muslim Brotherhood from Turkey to Egypt[42] and moral support for a Ukrainian regime that was set up by way of a terrorist attack on 20 February 2014 on the Maidan in Kiev, which Obama and the rest of the West then blamed on the overthrown president Viktor Yanukovich.[43]

Statization of Culture through State Education and Pro-DP Oligarch-Owned Media

Although institutions (constitution, laws, rules, government, organizations, etc.) are vitally important so is culture—our attitudes, values, beliefs, and behavior in relation to those institutuons. Institutions and culture create an integrated system, in which culture can transform institutions and institutions can transform culture. An example of the former is the law (and its enforcement) that forced those who engaged in racism to cease and desist and dismantle the South’s institutions of segregation among others. This led to a virtual disappearance of white-on-black racism in the United States in a matter of some two decades. Practices such as supporting radical racist and Marxist groups at home and abroad using state funds has been given perpetual backing and renewal under the U.S. government over the last few decades through state-based educational systems, which have been hijacked by radical indentitarian lobbying groups and the DP-captured National Teachers’ Association.For years corrupt partisanship in education from the K-9 to university levels has rigged the political playing field.

California is the cream of the crop when it comes to America’s authoritarianization of its political culture under a single-party dominant system. How has Democrat authoritarianization been achieved in a state that a mere two decades ago was electing Republican governors? This has been achieved by opening the borders to a massive influx of illegal immigrants from Latin America who the Democrats then urge not to assimilate into but rather to despise by ‘educating’ them about the ‘true nature’ of their new ‘racist and sexist’ homeland, by creating an educational system from grammar school through the massive tax-payer funded leftist California State University and University of California systems (encompassing some 30 universities, graduating hundreds of thousands of leftists and Democrat Party-state apparatchiks and operatives annually) that teach Democrat ‘values’ such as America being a ‘racist and sexist country’ and there being pervasive white supremacism and ‘institutional racism and sexism,’ and by rigging the drawing of electoral districts to reduce the number of Republican districts, among other things. Perfected in California, such state university systems have been replicated in many states nationwide, in all 50 states and is supplemented by widespread media control (see below).

The social sciences in lower education and the universities overall – not to speak such state university systems by themselves, where matters are most likely to be more unequal – are dominated by liberals and leftists in the professoriate, studentry, and curricula. Thus, teaching and tenure-track hiring is based on leftist ideological and minority identitarian principles – reverse discrimination – not scholarly criteria. A National Association of Scholars (NAS) publication notes:

Research since World War II has consistently found overwhelmingly left-oriented political attitudes and ideological self-Identification among college and university faculty. It has also found overwhelming support for the Democratic Party (see e.g., Klein and Stern, 2005; Klein and Stern, 2009; Gross & Simmons, 2007; Honeycutt & Freberg, 2017; McClintock, Spaulding, & Turner, 1965; Rothman, Lichter, & Nevitte, 2005; Buss & von Hippel, 2018). These findings are important for several reasons. Researchers have raised concerns that ideological homogeneity may lead to questionable research practices (Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim, & Tetlock, 2015; Jussim, Crawford, Anglin, Stevens, & Duarte, 2016; Martin, 2015; Stevens, Jussim, Anglin, & Honeycutt, 2019; Yancey, 2011). This concern is grounded in research on confirmation bias, group polarization, motivated reasoning, and the tendency for these phenomena to be even more pronounced among the highly educated. As well, partisan polarization has been leading to Republicans’ increasing skepticism about higher education (Parker, 2019).

Research on the politics of the professoriate has either surveyed individual professors about their partisan or ideological sympathies or identified partisan affiliation by using publicly available voter registration records (Langbert, Quain, & Klein, 2016Langbert, 2018). At least four consistent findings have emerged from this work: First, although the ratio of faculty who identify as or are registered as Democratic versus Republican (henceforth the D:R registration ratio) varies across departments, it almost always favors the Democratic Party. Second, the D:R registration ratio is typically higher among disciplines in the humanities and social sciences compared to those in the natural sciences and engineering. Third, the D:R registration ratio has increased over time, from roughly 4.5:1 in 1999 (Rothman et al, 2005) to 10:1 among elite liberal arts colleges and social science departments now (Langbert et al, 2016; Langbert, 2018). Fourth, the partisan slant is most extreme in the most highly rated institutions.[44]

This was the introductory literature review to a new study that attempted to refine date to rule out distorting factors. It sampled the political registrations of 12,372 university professors and found that 48.4 percent are registered Democrats and 5.7 percent are registered Republicans, a ratio of 8.5 to 1. This far outstrips the slight DP advantage in the general population of about 1.1 to 1, with 29 percent of Americans identifying as Democrats and 26 percent as Republicans. In terms of the disciplines, anthropology turned out most partisan, with professor registrations weighed heavily in favor of Democrats by a ratio of 42.2 to 1. Sociology’s ratio is 27 to 1, and English’s is 26.8 to 1; these were the next most DP-leaning fields surveyed. Most balanced was economics at only 3 to 1. The analysis broke new ground by considering political donations made by professors to partisan candidates and found that donations to DP candidates outnumbered those to RP candidates by a 95 to 1 ratio. Of the 12,372 professors examined, only 22 donated exclusively to Republicans. In donation dollars, professors favor Democrats by a ratio of 22-1 over Republicans.[45]

One method used to ensure DP dominance in the universities is to design positions and post job announcements that would attract find qualified the necessary sub-groups with the preferred political orientation. Another is to require that of three, say, finalists for a position, two of them must be women or black, for example. The same reverse discrimination is true in admissions, despite some improvement after the University of Michigan court decision of a decade ago. Large and increasingly bloated identitarian programs in women’s studies, black studies, Hispanic studies imbibe students with the idea that America is riven with ‘institutional racism’ and white supremacist privilege. This replaces social science methodology and the hard sciences to a greater and greater degree such that the U.S. has to import computer engineers and other high tech workers.

California and other states give those in the country illegally various privieleges, thereby undermiing the rule of law and recruiting for the DP, which supports such unconstitutional policies. The California and Texas state university systems allow undocumented students to pay the in-state tuition rate at public colleges, privilegeing them of American citizens from out of U.S. state. New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and several other states allow ‘undocumented’ students to receive state financial aid.[46] The University of California system’s universities give ‘undocumented’ students an application fee waiver for application to up to four of the UC universities.[47] According to one report, 450,000 university seats are now taken not by taxpaying American citizens’ sons and daughters but by ‘undocumented students’ in the U.S. illegally.[48] These largely Latino illegals from Central and South America are then recruited into Hispanic studies and other left-leaning programs and propangandized regarding the racist and imperial nature of American institutions and societ. In more subtle ways as well — not least of which is the general atmosphere at these universities created by leftist and identitarian programs – undocumented and indeed almost all students are turned to support DP policies and therefore the DP. In this way, America’s universities have fundamentally shifted American culture, political culture, and economic culture away from republicanism and capitalism towards socialism and minority fascism. This transformation is the result of the education system’s centralization under the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. and its capture by liberal elements and under the Obama administration leftist ones. The media – in the broad sense to include print, electronic, and social media, Hollywood, and overall entertainment and the arts – have contributed perhaps even more to this cultural-ontological shift and political polarization (see below).

From Administrative Resources to State and Global Oligarchy

Increasingly, American politicians are acting like state capitalists or oligarchs, using public office to enrich themselves rather than to serve the people. A good example of rapacious use of public office is Obama’s secretary of state and failed Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. Like a Chinese or Russian state oligarch, she ‘served’ in office and was able to enrich herself and her husband, former US President Bill Clinton. She was forced to substitute a fake Russiagate in order to cover up her real Russiagate corruption: the October 2010 Uranium One case. In brief, The FBI infiltrated Tenex, a subsidiary of Russia’s civilian nuclear energy state holding company, RosAtom. Tenex led the Russian purchase of Uranium One, paid and took bribes along the way, funneled bribes back to high-ranking officials in Moscow. At the same time, Hillary used her state position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, through the pay-for-play scheme that saw control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium go to Russia’s state company RosAtom in return for tens of millions of dollars in donations to Bill’s presidential library and the Clinton Foundation from Ukrainian, Russian, Canadian and other ‘donors.’[49] Clinton’s was the crucial vote on the Commission of Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), and it was bought with Clinton Foundation donations. Clinton and CFIUS were informed by U.S. intelligence of the RosAtom corruption evidence as of August 2010, three months before the CFIUS signed off on the Uranium One deal, as a recently discovered Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter now reveals.[50] It is a reflection of the Clintons’ hypocrisy that then-Senator Hillary was front and center in Senate hearings investigating the controversial Dubai Ports foreign investment deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) during the Bush administration, condemning the deal and emphasizing national security. When U.S. ports were removed from the deal, the Clinton Foundation nevertheless continued to take in contributions from the UAE.[51] Bill also got a payment from a Kremlin-connected bank to speak in Moscow in the run-up to a Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation at the time of the uranium sale.[52]

With impunity to use public office to enrich oneself comes impunity to commit other crimes. There is Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a home server to send and receive top secret U.S. government documents. The FBI passed on prosecuting this crime under DP Director James Comey, its decision was made knowing quite well she had committed this crime. Assistant FBI director Strzok, for instance, was informed that highly classified information at the Special Access Program level had been sent through her account. “SAP in HRC’s account,” Strzok was texted on 27 September 2016. In a 26 October 2016 email, he was informed about the total numbers of lower classified emails the FBI had located on Clinton’s private email: “27 confirmed classified TOTAL (26 to ClintonEmail, 1 to Yahoo): 6 of the 27 were SECRET then (4 of which remain SECRET now and 2 of which are CONFIDENTIAL) – 21 of the 27 were CONFIDENTIAL then (16 of which remain CONFIDENTIAL now and 5 of which are UNCLASS or FOUO).”[53]

As we discuss below, well before DNC data was stolen allegedly by way of a Russian hack and published on the Internet revealing Hillary-DNC scheming to steal the Demcratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, Hillary was readying the trumped up Steele Dossier to help the FBI, CIA, and DNI to gain FISA approval to divert attention to those corrupt Russians and Trump. The DP mass media undertook no independent investigation to examine the veracity of the charges against Trump and promoted what the Obama administration fed them, creating such a tidal wave of noise around ‘Russiagate.’ To the contrary, the DP media amplified the falsehood with verve. This also served the function of opening up an avenue for Hillary to defeat Trump in the election, block his inauguration, or impeach him (see below).

Like Hillary and Sechin, Obama’s vice president, Joseph Biden, also ‘served’ in office and illegally enriched himself and his family. He used precisely the method used by corrupt officials in Russia where state officials attempt to follow the letter of, and loopholes in the law to funnel money to themselves through their family members, while their own legally required annual declarations of property wealth remain clean. Just as Hillary used Russiagate or Sechin other ‘gates’ to cover up criminal-oligarchic activity, so too did Biden use Trump’s alleged Russiagate to cover up his own real Russiagate, Ukrainegate, and Chinagate. As is now well-documented, Joe Biden deployed his son Hunter to deploy the office of the vice president of the United States as an asset to raise business and close deals with various foreign companies, most notably in Ukriane, Russia and China, from which not only Hunter but he himself would profit.[54] In return, in Hunter’s own texted words, Dad got half of his ‘salary.’[55] In May 2014, months after the Maidan revolt and weeks after Kiev decalred war on its breakaway region Donbass, Vice President Biden’s son Hunter joined the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma. Hunter had a record as a drug addict and no knowledge of the natural gas business whatsoever. What he did have was his father, who happened to be vice president of the United States. Burisma was owned by a criminal former Ukrainian government official who stole funds from the state coffers and came under an investigation by Ukrainian prosecutors. Biden then forced Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire the country’s general prosecutor, who was investigating Hunter and the company for money laundering and other crimes.[56]

To review this sordid affair, the Bidens’ new business partner, Burisma’s founder and former Ukrainian Minister of Ecology and Natural Resurces Nikolai Zlochevskii, while in that office had his deputies approve projects contracted to his own company. Zlochevskii told Yurii Lutsenko, who would later become Ukraine’s chief prosecutor, that he had $35-36 million dollars from corrupt property sales approved as minister and laundered to banks in London.[57] Burisma paid Hunter a $250,000 retainer on 5 July 2014 through the firm ‘Boies Schiller Flexner’ plus $3 million between 2014 and 2016 to the firm close ‘Rosemont Seneca Bohai’ to Hunter and Secretary of State John Kerry’s nephew.[58] According to Hunter’s own emails, obtained through a laptop in FBI custody since at least 2019, in the weeks before he officially joined Burisma’s board, Hunter developed a strategy with his business partner on how to use his father-vice president’s upcoming official trip to Kiev in order to seal the deal. Hunter referred to the vice president as “my guy” and took credit for “adding value” because his father was making comments to Ukrainian leaders about natural gas production that could benefit Burisma, his new client. Hunter was also pressing Burisma Holdings to sign the consulting deal with him and his business partner Devon Archer before “not after the upcoming visit of my guy,” his father, to Ukraine on 21-22 April 2014, wrote Hunter in a 13 April 2014 email. The emails also demonstrate that Hunter already knew his and Archer’s appointments to Burisma’s board were foregone conclusions in mid-April. Hunter also wanted Burisma to pay an additional consulting fee to him or his law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, “a retainer in the range of 25k p/m w/ additional fees where appropriate for more in depth work to go to BSF for our protection…completely separate from our respective deals re board participation,” Hunter wrote.[59] This would be done through much of 2016.

Nikolai Zlochevskii and Hunter Biden

Moreover, Hunter strategized a day after the the vice president’s Ukraine visit was announced to play up his father’s visit as one of the part of their deliverables “as part of our advice and thinking” in asking “for a long term agreement and across the board participation” in Burisma’s business. Two days after this email, Archer visited the Obama White House to meet with the administration’s ‘point man on Ukraine,’ vice president Biden. After the first day of the visit to Ukraine, Hunter noted in a 22 April 2014 email that his father had indeed urged Ukrainian legislators to expand its natural gas business and recommended he and Archer impress upon Burisma that their efforts had led to the comment’s entry into the vice president’s speech. They had “added value,” Hunter wrote. At the same time, Archer wrote to Hunter: “We need to make sure this rag tag temporary Government in the Ukraine understands the value of Burisma to its very existence,” Archer wrote Hunter Biden after the vice president’s comments were sent to him. The emails also reveal that the Bidens were well aware of the corrupt, even criminal reputation of their new partner Zlochevskii and were prepared for Boies Schiller to “have direct discussions at state, energy and NSC” and “devise a media plan and arrange for legal protections and mitigate US domestic negative press regarding the current leadership if need be.”[60]

Although Hunter noted while vice presidential visits to Ukraine might be one their devlierables for Burisma, he cautioned that “what he (the vice president) will say and do is out of our hands.” This suggests Hunter was being careful not to leave evidence that he would be lobbying on behalf of a foreign company seeking U.S. assistance, which would require registering under the Foreign Agent Registration Act and would be unseemly if not illegal for the son of a vice president. Thus, he urged vigilance in staying or at least appearing to be playing within the bounds of the law. Burisma officials “need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policy makers, and that we need to abide by FARA and any other US laws in the strictest sense across the board,” Hunter suggests.[61]

However, on 18 February 2016, just before the Steele dossier, the alleged hacks of Democratic Party servers, and the Russian trolling the 2016 U.S. presidential elections geared up, authorities in Latvia came across suspicious money transfers. U.S. Vice President Biden and his son Hunter were receiving money laundered through a shell company, Cypress, and a Latvian bank. Latvian authorities, the Office for Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds Derived from Criminal Activity or FIU flagged to Ukrainian “financial authorities” a series of “suspicious” financial transactions to Hunter and three of his colleagues at a Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings Ltd., then owned by Ukrainian organized crime figure Mykola Zlochevskii. “The Office for Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds Derived from Criminal Activity … is currently investigating suspicious activity of Burisma Holdings Limited.” “On the grounds of possible legalization of proceeds derived from criminal activity and corruption, please grant us permission to share the information included in the reply to this request with Latvian law enforcement entities for intelligence purposes only,” reads the FIU document released to journalist John Solomon by the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office and confirmed by the Latvian embassy to the United States in the person of its Third Secretary, Arturs Saburovs. FIU flagged loan payments amounting to about $16.6 million sent from companies in Beliz and the United Kingdom from Burisma through Ukraine’s PrivatBank between 2012 and 2015 and specifically asked the Ukrainian authorities to confirm whether Hunter was a beneficiary of the transactions. Hunter became a Burisma board member in May 2014 and “partially” the transferred funds, amounting to $166,000 per month, had gone to him and two other Americans at Burisma, including former US Secretary of State John Kerry’s son-in-law Devon Archer. Riga was seeking the assistance of Kiev’s prosecutors’ in investigating the transactions.[62]

Ukraine opened, closed, and in 2018 reopened a criminal investigation not just of Hunter but with the last the former US vice president himself. Later, days after it appeared Biden might have won the presidential election, the case was suddenly closed.[63] American and Ukrainian corruption are now inseparable, as in the past was Russian and Ukrainian corruption. In the interim, the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, Iovanovitch blocked Ukraine’s prosecutor Yurii Lutsenko from obtaining a visa to the U.S., so he could meet with American law enforcement officials and report the Bidens’ corrupt and indeed criminal activity.[64] Iovanovitch was also taking actions against newly elected and then very popular Ukrianian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy in favor of former and exceedingly corrupt President Petro Poroshenko, as the former revealed in his first phone conversation with President Trump.[65] More recently it has been disclosed from internal emails that Biden was warned by business partners that he was at risk for not having reported $400,000 in income from his work with Burisma.[66]

At the same time, while Hunter Biden was prepared to provide access to strategic advice presumably to help develop business and geopolitical strategies to strengthen Ukraine’s energy and overall independence for Russia, he was anxious to bring Communist Chinese and other moneys to energy deals for Burisma and Ukraine. The privatization (with government connections) of foreign policy was being put in place. “This could be the break we have been waiting for if they really are smart enough to understand our long term value. …If they are looking to just use us until the storm passes then we risked far too much for far too little. We could be invaluable in expanding their operations outside Uk [sic] by promoting their US partnerships and expertise – whether that’s China, Mexico, other parts of the Black Sea, Poland.” However, Biden’s son expressed frustration over the pace of his business with the communists. No direct revenue had been garnered for himself or his company, though Hunter accompanied his father on Air Force Two for a December 2013 Beijing trip: “We had assurances that the PRC money would come first, and we would build on that. Right now I don’t see that happening…. If they want us in Beijing once a month and pitching this outside PRC we should be getting paid in advance just like every other team member that’s [sic] getting a salary.”[67]

Therefore, Hunter moved to make deals with a former Chinese spy and Party-tied businessmen. One deal envisaged a $10 million windfall in th form of a loan to the “Biden family.”[68] Hunter’s VP-father – “the big guy,” as Hunter dubbed his Dad in an email — was guaranteed “10 percent” in another deal, which included sharing a supposed office and foundation with the CCP-tied Chinese ‘business executives.’[69] Russia watchers remember ‘2% Misha,’ the Russian PM Mikhail Kasyanov? The United States now has a more expensive ‘10% Joe.’ Moreover, Hunter was not so much trying to cut Russia out as cut her into his China deals, contrary to what his email comments regarding China and Ukraine suggested. While Biden was proposing bringing up Trump on Logan Act charges for non-existent collusion with Russia, Biden and his son were working with the China’s communists to purchase a 14% stake in dastardly Putin’s RosNeft state oil company (formerly Yukos and expropriated from the later imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovskii), headed by the notorious Igor Sechin, and doing business with a corrupt Russian businesswoman, Yelena Baturina, the wife of the then-former, now deceased mayor of Moscow, Yurii Luzhkov.[70]

But the most outrageous deal was one revealed in a released excerpt from a Hunter phone call, in which he states that he had concluded a deal worth $4 billion with the corrupt Chinese businessman and former internal security Patrick Ho, the “spy chief,” as Hunter refers to him, had been the subject of a trial in the U.S. and went missing. Both Hunter and his father-vice president were named as wirnesses in the case. The excerpt from Hunter’s taped phone call reads:

I get calls from my father to tell me that The New York Times is calling but my old partner Eric, who literally has done me harm for I don’t know how long, is the one taking the calls because my father will not stop sending the calls to Eric. I have another New York Times reporter calling about my representation of Patrick Ho – the fucking spy chief of China who started the company that my partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded and is now missing. The richest man in the world is missing who was my partner. He was missing since I last saw him in his $58 million apartment and signed a $4 billion deal to build the fucking largest fucking LNG port in the world. And I am receiving calls from the Southern District of New York from the U.S. Attorney himself. My best friend in business Devon has named me as a witness without telling me in a criminal case and my father without telling me.”[71]

This indicates that indeed the Biden family’s business is not just criminal and corrupt but potentially puts U.S. national security at risk. In another deal, Hunter Biden founded a firm called BHR, a joint venture with Seneca Rosemont and the Chinese state bank, just two weeks after Hunter accompanied his father on an official trip to Beijing. BHR invested in the Chinese state nuclear energy firm CGN—China’s RosAtom. CGN is implicated in the theft of highly sensitive American technology and the provision of that technology to the Chinese Communist Party and may have been created for this sole purpose. In 2017 the U.S. Justice Department charged Szuhsiung Ho, a consultant employed by CGN, with “assisting CGN in procuring U.S.-based nuclear engineers to assist with designing and manufacturing certain components for nuclear reactors.” Ho pled guilty, was sentenced to two years in prison, and paid a fine of $20,000. All of the above has been confirmed by the Bidens’ business partner at the time, Tony Bobulinskii, who gave an extended interview on the subject, despite having his family’s loyalty to America denied by the DP machine. Bobulinskii verified the former vice president’s deep involvement in the business ventures, including the Chinese state “loan to the Biden family” (something the former VP claimed he “never” discussed with his son) and corroborated the veracity of Hunter’s laptops, emails, and illegal business activities.[72]  

Finally on state oligarch Biden, the former vice president reportedly runs a cancer charity that has provided no funds for research but salaries in abundance.[73] Perhaps most despicable in all of the above corrupt and criminal activity is these Democrat politicians’ and their minions’ aggressive and condescending lectures to Russia about its failures in democracy, the rule of law, and corruption; a glaring contradiciton especially when compared to their much softer touch with China. Money talks after all in Washington perhaps no less than in soft authoritarian Russia or communist China. No wonder Putin and his associates, who, being even more corrupt albeit, certainly are well aware of all this, and many other Russians see a great deal of hypocrisy as well as a justification for their own corruption in American speechifying.

When it appeared Donald Trump might win the US presidency in 2016, locking out the Bidens from their ‘business office’ and opening them up to possible exposure and investigation, Poroshenko and his minions provided the very first set of documents that the FBI used to secure FISA permission to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign staff, leading to the massive and entirely conjured ‘Russian collusion’ fairy tale (see below). The Democrat machine was able not just to limit but preempt any damage from these affairs in up to and through the 2020 presidential election because its mass media hegemony prevented the public from finding out about all of the above. Control of media is yet another tactic also often deployed in the very same Putin’s Russia Americans and recently Democrats particularly.

DP Media Hegemony: Repression of Journalists, Media Control and Censorship

Many have forgotten Obama’s authoritarian repression of independent and conservative journalists; something that ceased once he left office. Even the Washington Post and Yahoo, two organs usually covering up DP malfeasance, had to report on the fact that the Obama administration by 2010 had already prosecuted twice as many leakers as all previous administrations combined and, in particular, Obama’s extensive illegal spying on FOX News journalist James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails. The FBI, which helped implement the DP’s ‘Russiagate’ fraud (see below), accused Rosen of violating anti-espionage laws for carrying out routine journalistic work. Prior to that, the Obama administration’s FBI seized two months of telephone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press. Obama said he made “no apologies” for the investigations, which turned up nothing but created an oppressive chill surrounding the media and began the process of its cowing and subordination to the DP.[74] A month after the Obama administration’s attack on Rosen was disclosed, it turned to CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Atkisson. The award-winning, independent journalist became victim of the Obama administration’s repression in 2012. Her computer was hacked, documents were exfiltrated by, according to an independent cybersecurity firm’s analysis, a U.S. government intelligence agency, and three classified documents were inserted into a folder.[75] After she went to the FBI for redress, she was asked to turnover her computer to the Justice Department. Atkisson subsequently sued the office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, charging they had swapped out her hard-drive while the computer was in their possession At the time, Atkisson was working on a book about the Obama administration’s falsification of the facts and coverup of the actual origins of the notorious Benghazi attack, and she concludes it was the U.S. government which hacked her computer.[76] As noted above, the Obama administration is the leader among U.S, administrations when it comes to the repression of whistleblowers, who are important sources for those non-liberal journalists interested in ‘speaking truth to power.’ This is what soft authoritarianism, not even weak democracy looks like.

In addition to repression, the Obama administration through de facto bribery and a media-government revolving door established DP hegemony, a near monopoly in the information space and a gradually approached a complete monopoly on mainstream mass media, having in their pocket CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Facebook, Twitter, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, and all other non-conservative media. This would have dire consequences during the 2020 presidential campaign, in which the mainstream deliberately and grossly prejudiced the playing field beyond its previous pattern to an unprecedentedly new level against one candidate, President Donald Trump, in favor of his challenger, the DP’S Joseph Biden. These are some of the issues they covered up by not reporting, by covering up, and by censoring, while they focused entirely on legitimate and wildly illegitimate criticism of president Trump. The list could fill several books just for the period of Trump’s first presidential term:

  • the Hillary server scandal.
  • Hillary’s Uranium One scandal.
  • the illegal use by Hunter Biden of his father’s office as vice president to conduct business and funneling part of those funds back to his father, with no non-conservative news agency reporting on it and YouTube deleting the full hour-length interview with Tony Bobulinskii, the Bidens’ business partner, who verified the former vice president’s deep involvement in the business ventures.[77]
  • While the DP-tied media semi-monopoly accused Trump of preparing all sorts of election chicanery before Election Day, they were busy cheating themselves. Curiously, the Clinton-Obama-Biden media completely reversed their foci between the period before and the period after the 3 November 2020 election. Prior to the election they were preparing to accuse Trump of stealing the election by allegedly removing mail bxes in pro-DP districts and using insecure Dominion vote tallying machines with a wink and a nod implying Trump was readying to cheat with them. They found the machines deeply disturbing and easily manipulable. There was not a word about this issue after the 2020 election after citizens and experts reported widespread intimidation, fraud, and that the Dominion machines had been used for fraud.[78]
  •  Twitter shut down Trump’s Twitter account in the middle of the campaign.
  • Not one of the ‘dirty dozen’ DP media organs covered the story of a truck driver who discovered he was transporting hundreds of thousands of filled out ballots from an isolated postal depot in the state of New York across three state lines to Pennsylvania.[79] There is now way that so many Pennsylvania absentee ballots could have been gathered outside of the state.
  • In the wake of the 2020 presidential voting, the media did all it could to ignore the thousands of citizens who reported massive fraud. For example, after a Pennsylvania postal worker gave witness to massive fraud in a court affidavit, the Democrat’s press organ The Washington Post falsely claimed he had retracted his claims, forcing the postal worker to refute the retraction, which most Democrat and other Washington Post readers, of course, will never see.[80]
  • As the presidential campaign moved into the final stretch, DP and Obama ally Soros moved to tilt the playing field against Trump. In January 2020, Soros expressed his “fear that with Facebook’s help, Mr. Trump will win the 2020 election.” He claimed that Trump was in a mutual assistance relationship with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, and that Facebook’s leadership, including Zuckerberg, should be removed. He complained: “Mr. Trump apparently had no problem with Facebook’s decision not to fact-check politicl ads.” “Facebook’s decision not to require fact-checking for political candidates’ advertising in 2020 has flung open the door for false, manipulated, extreme and incendiary statements. Such content is rewarded with prime placement and promotion if it meets Facebook-designed algorithmic standards for popularity and engagement. What’s more, Facebook’s design tends to obscure the sources of inflammatory and false content and fails to adequately punish those who spread false information. Nor does the company effectively warn those who are exposed to lies.”[81] Soros reinforced his veiled threat when Media Matters for America (MMfA), which he funds, stepped up the push to institute open censorship and stigmatization of conservatives on FB beyond the cryptic algorithm method it, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media have used for years to discriminate against conservative voices. MMfA wrote: “Facebook has repeatedly acted to bolster Trump and other conservatives” ridiculing Zuckerberg’s rare hire of a person from a non-leftist milieu, a former FOX News producer.[82] As is well known, Facebook soon began using fact-checkers who only targeted Trump, Republicans, and other conservatives posting. They supposedly determined that a post or linked article or video was untrue and either banned the post or attached a warning to discredit the post. Typically, in terms of the election-related posts, readers were told to go to a Facebook’s election page for supposedly accurate reporting. Any post on election fraud was labeled as unverified or had attached to it a notice saying that election law ensures the proper management of elections and processing of ballots. However, before the election when DP media drummed up the false claim that Trump was removing mailboxes in pro-Democratic districts, no such fact-checking, warning, or censorship were deployed. To the contrary, they were featured in the Facebook news feed column. Similarly, Democrat claims before the election that the Dominion vote tabulating machines were insecure and very vulnerable to fraud were not subject to suppression as they were after the election when Republicans began expressing concerns and offering legitimate reports backed up by court affidavits.  

Such exercises were the DP oligarch media’s contribution to the making of the first unfree and unfair elections in American history (see below).

Obama’s Politicization of America’s Siloviki, Electoral Coups, and Revolution from Above

To use the ‘Putinization’ model, we can say that the Barack Obama administration and its party, the Democratic party, deployed ‘silovik’‘ to gain the election defeat or impeachment of Trump. In the latter case, this amounted to an attempted coup that is still in play with the attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election and thereby install single-party rule and a soft socialist authoritarian regime. In Russian and ruslogical jargon, ‘siloviki‘ refers to the organs or departments of law enforcement, police, intelligence, and national security. In the case of Russia that would be the FSB, MVD, SVR, GRU, National Guard, and military. In the U.S., it would refer to ‘organs of coercion’ such as the FBI, police, CIA, DIA, NSA, and the military. The Barack Obama was the first US president to use the siloviki against his political enemies and to allow his political party to do so.

Consequently, he and his party appear to have attempted to undertake a coup in order to change the nature of the American political system in a revolution from above. Such a regime transformation, as I wrote in my first book, Russia’s Revolution from Above, is “the illegal or extralegal takeover of some or all state institutions of political and/or economic power by high- and/or middle-ranking officials and bureaucrats in order to overthrow the economic, social, and political systems of the ancien regime with little or no mass participation, violence, execution, emigration, or counter-revolution.” Similarly, but also differently, by removing Trump, if it had succeeded, or by stealing the 2020 election, if it succeeds, the DP will almost certainly move to install a new socialist order under de facto single-party rule. The ground is already laid by some of the issues raised in this paper as well as the emergency measures being forced on the American public under the guise of COVID emergency. Indeed, these pandemic measures facilitated much of the fraud in said elections by justifying massive voting-by-mail fraught with such a mechanisms’ broad opportunities for electoral fraud.

Should this electoral coup succeed, DP plans to legalize 15-20 million illegal aliens and make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states will, if they can get them passed, will mark to onset of single-party rule and soft authoritarianism in the U.S. With this change of system, the U.S. will be transformed from what is now an increasingly weak republican multiparty system to a de facto (potentially de jure in future) single-party system soft authoritarian system. Although there is a still a long way to go before this is accomplished, the first steps have been taken. It will take much longer for our American revolutionaries from above to cross the threshold from a predominantly democratic regime to a predominantly authoritarian one than it took for Putin. After all the Russian president was dealing with a much weaker, really proto-democracy when he came to power, which is a far more malleable animal than the U.S. system and culture with its centuries-long republican traditions, however diluted and attenuated they might have become in the last two decades or so.


A tendency in authoritarian or monist (as a opposed to pluralist) regimes is to see opposition and dissidents as not simply competitors but as enemies. The political culture tends to be more conflictive than comitous. A parallell in recent American politics to such authoritarian political culture, for example that in evidence across much of ‘Putin’s Russia, was the unprecedented demonization of the opposition — the Republican Party and other consiervative elements — as the enemy. The ‘other side of the aisle’ become the other side of the barricades, the other side on the front line in a cold cilvil war. Obama was the first US president to refer publicly to Republicans as the Democrats’ “enemies.” In 2010 President Obama signaled just how much he was willing to divide Americans on the basis of communalist politics. He commented in an interview: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ — if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election — then I think it’s going to be harder. And that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd”. For the first time in American history, an American president had labeled his political opponents, the Republican Party, his “enemies”—ones that needed to be ‘punished.’ (In this context, recall the media hullabaloo over Republican V.P. candidate Sarah Palin for ‘violent’ pictures of targets on a map of congressional districts that should be contested by her party posted on her website!) The nearly universally pro-Democratic ‘media’ issued not a syllable of criticism. Moreover, Obama had done this to an audience, including many foreigners. Many viewers of Latino, Spanish-language Univision television to which he gave the interview are citizens of Latin American countries and/or U.S. illegal aliens. In this way, Obama raised the temperature of not just or overall Democratic-Republican politics but America’s already tense interethnic relations. What is worse is that when Obama explained away his divisive and offensive comment, he stated that he “probably” should have used the word ‘opponents’—‘probably’!?[83] This was not simply a non-apology apology, it was a subtle, cool-minded, very smooth reiteration of his initial attack. And so it continued for six more tension-filled years. If Democrats wonder why Republicans were willing to support an often equally divisive if rather loud-mouthed verbal bull in a China shop such as Trump, they need look no further.

Given the anti-American nature of such a level of political culture, it came as no surprise that Obama and his fellow travelers acted like authoritarian rulers and began using the security and intelligence organs against their political ‘enemies.’ They would push the country to the brink of single-party rule, should they succeed.

The Road to One-Party Rule

Thus, when it became to appear possible that Donald Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, they ‘sicced’ America’s security and intelligence bodies on the Republicans and their candidate. They conjured trumped up charges against Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and president-elect Trump’s choice for his national security chief, General Michael Flynn and manufactured out of whole clothe a Trump-collusion-with-Putin narrative to discredit Trump, using a phony ‘Steele dossier’ and a distorted version of the hacking of the DNC which exposed Hillary’s and the DNC’s efforts to fix Hillary’s defeat of Bernie Sanders in the DP nomination race. The Steele dossier, financed in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC and organized by pro-DP firm, GPS Fusion, hired by Clinton campaign and the DNC, was used, along with falsified FISA appeals on Trump associates Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and General Michael Flynn by Hillary-DNC allies in the FBI to discredit Trump and set off a wild goose chase under the Mueller commission to keep the propaganda on the front page of the Democratic Party’s puppet media (all the major TV networks except FOX News, The Washington Post, The New York Times and sundry other newspapers and magazines, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube). In doing so, the Democrats’ themselves colluded with Ukraine and ultra-nationalist Ukrainian-Americans, allowing the former to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections. Newly released Strzok-Page text messages reveal that Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein received the false Steele dossier alleging Trump-Putin collusion from inveterate russophobe John McCain, demonstrating that one driver of ‘Russiagate’ was to stop Trump from ending the ‘new cold war’ by ‘abandoning Ukraine.’[84] After they failed to defeat Trump at the polls despite the massive propaganda campaign of falsehoods, the DP, Ukrainian-Americans, and siloviki elements then falsely characterized a phone call made by Trump to newly elected Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy in a desperate attempt to impeach Trump. The other main driver of all of this nefarious coup-plotting was a fear that Trump might be able to get Ukraine to finally investigate the Biden family’s illegal business in Ukraine and open the way to further investigations into Biden family illegal activities in China, Russia, and elsewhere (see below).

In May 2016, before the firing, arrest and imprisonment of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign director Manafort and the firing of Trump’s appointee as National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn, before the announcement of the alleged Russian hacks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the DCCC, and state election systems, before the publication of the false Steele dossier, and before the reported Russian invasion by an army of Putin trolls pushing Americans to vote for Trump, Ukrainian nationalst émigré` Ali Chalupa emailed her employers at the Democratic National Committee to say that she was plotting to thwart the presidential campaign of Donald Trump:

ALI CHALUPA, 3 May 2016 email:

Check this out… [SigDems]<>Luis Miranda, Communications Director Democratic National Committee 202-863-8148 –<> – @MiraLuisDC<; From: Chalupa, Ali Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 11:56 PM To: Miranda, Luis Subject: Re: You saw this, right?

A lot more coming down the pipe. I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine last Wednesday at the Library of Congress – the Open World Society’s forum – they put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort and I invited Michael Isikoff whom I’ve been working with for the past few weeks and connected him to the Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.[85]

In the six months after this email was written, as suggested above, much would happen. Much would be declared as fact with limited to know evidence backing the claims up. The meme became that Putin had dirt on Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump, controlled him as a ‘Manchurian candidate’, infiltrated the Trump campaign, hacked the DNC, trolled the social net to steal the election for Trump, and so on. Since these claims have all been gravely undermined or fully debunked, an alternative hypothesis is worth pursuing.

There was a regime in one particular country that had a major, existential interest in seeing Trump defeated in the election or removed by impeachment after inauguration: Ukraine. It is now clear that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party needed to protect itself, especially those who were involved in corrupt activities in Ukraine and Russia, such as the Clintons and Bidens (VP Joe and his troubled son Hunter). Bill Clinton had taken half a million from the Russian for a single speech. Hillary had facilitated the Russians’ acquisition of American uranium in return for contributions to the Clinton Presidential Library, and the Bidens had been involved in selling access to VP Joe Biden, with Hunter a month or so after the Maidan revolt that removed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych from power joining the board of Burisma run by a corrupt Ukrainian criminal figure and former official and then sold to another criminal Ukrainian oligarch and Privatbank owner Igor Kolomoiskii. Hunter had his salary and other funds laundered to receive them. Also, Biden appears to have stepped in to allow Kolomoiskii, who had been barred from entering the US on suspicion of murder and “beheadings,” to obtain a US visa, for after the Bidens struck up their partnership with him, Kolomoiskii suddenly was able to come to the US (‘Ukraine: The Final Piece’). Kolomoiskii, who is an associate of present Ukrainian President Volodomor Zelenskiy, had run afoul of President Petro Poroshenko, whose government seized Privatbank. Hunter had also taken money from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow Yurii Luzhkov.

Should Trump be elected President, he might allow this criminal activity to be investigated exposing the Democrats’ dirty democratizers.

Moreover, on several occasions Trump had expressed sympathy for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Any US-Russian rapprochement or at least easing of tensions would damage the Maidan regime’s prospects, in particular the fortunes of Yanukovych’s Maidan regime successor Petro Poroshenko and the neofascist and ultranationalists with which he has curried favor by starting the Donbass civil war and refusing to negotiate with the Donbass rebels all done in good part to reduce the challenge and even a coup by those very same neofascist and ultranationalist forces. Such a change in Russian-Western relations also might expose the Washington-Brussels deception regarding the Obama administration’s efforts to turn Ukraine West, towards NATO, and post-modern globalism in particular by way of the false claim that the 20 February 2014 snipers’ massacre was carried out by security police on orders from then President Viktor Yanukovych rather than by the Maidan protests’ radical wing of said neofascists and ultranationalists.

Could the Maidan regime or elements in and around it – specifically, the SBU and societal neo-fascists – have coordinated with national Ukrainian-Americans in and around the U.S. government, the DP, and major international left-wing funders (e.g., George Soros) to organize the largest strategic communications operation in history designed to pin on Putin the abivementioned machinations? Let’s take a look at evidence that supports such a hypothesis.   

Chalupa’s email appears to be alluding to two developments that indeed broke in the “next few weeks” after Chalupa sent her missive: the announcement that the DNC had supposedly been hacked by Russians and the announcement of alleged collusion between Trump presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Vladimir Putin. When so-called ‘Russiagate’ affair would be over, the hack claim would in shambles and Manafort had been charged with economic crimes committed only in connection with Ukraine and the Ukrainians under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovich, not with any Russians. His consulting work for Yanukovich and his Party of the Regions had no substantial connection to the Kremlin. Chalupa’s email also was likely referring to the so-called Steele Dossier of supposedly Kremlin dirt on Trump, which was being compiled at the time by former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele for Hillary Clinton’s campaign through its contract with the GPS Fusion research group closely tied to the Democrats and officials in the FBI who moved the document up the chain to President Obama.

Ali Chalupa is the daughter of an ethnic Ukrainian Soviet émigré`’ family, identity politics maven and feminist as well as the DNC’s Ethnic Engagement Director during the years before the 2016 presidential election. She coordinated ethnic politics for the Democratic party in the years around the 2016 presidential election, ran opposition research against Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump, and appealed to the Ukrainian government to help her dig up incriminating information against the head of then presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign Paul Manafort.[86] The low-ranking contractor Chalupa visited the Whote House 27 times. She had five meetings in the Obama White House’s office of the Chief of Staff under Valerie Jarret with Asher Mayerson, who then was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement. The meetings took place on 18 December 2015, 11 January 2016, 22 February 2016, 13 May 2016, and 14 June 2016, the same day the news of the alleged Russian hack of the DNC was announced. Mayerson was previously an intern at the radically leftist Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work for the City of Chicago Treasurer’s office, where Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s first chief of staff, had been elected mayor. Also, Chalupa met with Mayerson and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016. She also met on 2 June 2015 with two special assistants to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, run by Valerie Jarrett: Alexa Kissinger and Alexandra Sopko, yet another Ukrainian-Amercan.[87]

Ali’s sister, Irena Chalupa works for the pro-NATO Atlantic Council on Ukrainian issues and earlier did the same for U.S. government information service Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Oddly, the Atlantic Council received funding through a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma.[88] The company, it will be recalled, is at the center of seemingly president-elect and former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden’s ‘Ukrainegate’ or simply Bidengate as it is called in Ukraine. There are reports, now scrubbed from the Internet, that Irena is the wife of Dmitrii Alperovitch, the founder of Crowdstrike, which was hired by the Obama administration to ‘investigate the supposedly Russian-hacked Democratic National Committee’s servers. Go to the Internet and try to find mention of an Alperovitch wife, girlfriend, boyfreind, or transgender hermaphrodite friend; you won’t find it.

Ali’s and Irena’s sister is Andrea Chalupa, who hosts a rabidly ‘progressive’ leftist, anti-Trump, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian radio talk show. Episode titles of the broadcast include ‘Voldemort Putin’, ‘Russian Propaganda as Judge and Jury’, ‘How to Trump and Putin-Proof Our Democracy’, ‘Impeach Barr’, ‘Jared Kushner is a National Emergency’, ‘The Trump Crime Cult’, ‘Dictators Die, Art Is Forever: The Oleg Sentsov Interview’, ‘Has Blood on Their Hands’, ‘The United States of Enron’, ‘Corporate Manslaughter’, and the like.[89] Demonstrating the far-left orientation of the Democratic Party’s ‘Ukrainian cell’ is that Andrea Chalupa’s Facebook page, she champions Malcolm X’s statement ‘You can’t have capitalism without racism!’ and declares: “When we realise that the French Revolution was also a period of radical feminism, we begin to see how relevant they still are to the twenty-first century.”[90] The ladies’ mother, Tanya Chalupa, is also a rabid Ukrainian nationalist and Putin-obsessed.[91] What was called ‘Russiagate’ was really a Democrat Party-Ukrainegate with a Bidengate (Burisma) wrapped inside. The Chalupas were but bit players in a much larger high stakes game involving the country’s highest ranking officials. The Democratic Party, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden would have numerous operatives in the FBI, CIA, and elsewhere to assist in their attempt to defeat Trump in the 2016 presidential election or overturn its results by an impeachment coup–what many call the ‘deep state,’ now hijacked by radicals and ‘corruptionaires.’

The Ukrainian-American Manafort Fraud

On 27 May 2016, weeks after Ali Chalupa’s heads email weeks earlier, Artyom Sytnik, head of the US embassy- and Soros-controlled Main National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or NABU confirmed that his department had received documents from the Party of Regions “black cash box” handed over to it by former  (as of 2015) deputy head of post-Soviet Ukraine’s successor to the Ukrainian KGB, the Sluzhba bezopasnost Ukrainy or SBU, and at the time a continuing SBU operative.[92] Four days later, a portion of these documents was published by a Rada deputy from the Petro Poroshenko Bloc Sergei Leshchenko and the editor-in-chief of the daily pro-Maidan Ukrainskaya pravda, Segvil Musaeva-Borovik.[93] In December 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that both NABU head Sytnik and Rada deputy Leshchenko had illegally meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking financial documents that smeared then-Trump campaign manager Manafort. Sytnik and Leshchenko eventually ended up in Ukrainian prisons for attempting to influence the US presidential campaign. Although the documents they produced proved secret payments that Manafort had received from Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions before 2014, forcing Manafort to plead guilty to illegal lobbying and tax violations and sending him to prison, he was never accused or charged by US authorities, including the Mueller investigation, of colluding with Russia. Moreover, high-level Demcratic Party political consultants such as the Podesta brothers were engaged in the same consulting activity. So Ukrainian officials and Ukrainian-American emigres conspired to smear a presidential candidate at the behest of the same DNC that claimed to be hacked by the Russians. The ‘chernaya kassa’ documents became the basis for Paul Manafort’s removal from the Trump campaign and his indictment, arrest, and imprisonment. The  Mueller special prosecutorial investigation, set up on the basis of these documents to uncover — as we were told by Obama, other former Obama administration officials, and the US media — the vast Russian conspiracy to turn the 2016 presidential election to Trump’s favor, found no Manafort activity related to Russia but was able to indict him on illegal activity in Ukraine only.

We now know that the Trump campaign and thus Manafort were investigated on the basis of false claims in the so-called Steele Dossier, which the Obama administration FBI, CIA, and Justice Department knew was based on faulty intelligence. They took this faulty intelligence to FISA to obtain a warrant to go after not just Manafort but Trump’s nominee for the post of National Security advisor, former Obama administration DIA Director Michael Flynn, who was later acquitted upon news of the faulty documentation that led to his indictment, conviction, and imprisonment.[94]

Chalupa, the DNC, and Ukrainian Officials

We now know that Ali Chalupa requested and received assistance form the Ukrainian government in framing Manafort for collusion with Moscow, but in the abovmentioned email we read she had been in contact with the “Ukrainians” whom she put in touch with the Amercian journalist Michael Isikoff, who was one of the first to publish the Steele dossier materials. We also know that in December 2016 Ali was denying any Ukrainian role:

Alexandra Chalupa

December 2, 2016 · 

Shared via AddThis

Unbelievable….The Foreign Ministry of Russia is accusing Ukraine for outing Trump’s former campaign Chairman Paul Manafort for the damaging work he did in Ukraine (including work for Putin’s former puppet president Yanukovych). This speaks volumes about Russia’s involvement in the US election and should signal to America how dangerous it is that Manafort has a leading role shaping Trump’s administration and transition. Seems Russia is quite confidant now that Putin’s puppet president will be ruling the US.[95]

Ali was right about one thing; Russia had accused Ukraine of ‘outing’ Manafort.[96] And, indeed, Russia was right, as the misleading Sytnik-Leshchenko ‘chernaya kassa’ revealed. But when Manafort was fired from the campaign and arrested for his business in Ukraine, Ali’s sister announced her sister’s role to the world, and later the Ukrainian embassy in Washington acknowledged Ali had asked it to help gather dirt on Manafort.[97] Indeed, Ali herself told Politico that she had met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Manafort, and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. After Chalupa’s expressions of concern about Manafort supposedly being ‘Putin’s man’ made to the Ukrainian embassy in DC and to DNC officials were followed by Manafort’s appointment as campaign chief, Chalupa found support from both. Ukrainian embassy officials became “helpful” in Chalupa’s efforts, she said. She “traded information and leads with them. ‘If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to follow up with.’ But she stressed, ‘There were no documents given, nothing like that.’”[98] True, Chalupa received no documents; they were handed to Sytnik in Kiev instead to become part of the Manafort investigation, likely in coordination with Chalupa. “During the 2016 US election, I was a part time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement program,” Chalupa told CNN in July 2017. “I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC, and the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information.”[99] But Chalupa, who founded the U.S. United With Ukraine Coalition in 2014, wrote eight months earlier that she led the DNC’s opposition research into any Trump ties to Russia.[100] That is not all she did. The White House visitor logs show that Ali Chalupa, the relatively low-level DNC contractor who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate Manafort and Trump, visited the White House 27 times.[101]

Leaked audiotapes later revealed Sytnik acknowledging he helped the Clinton campaign by releasing documents against Manafort, even though, he said, Trump would be better for America.[102] Sytnik and Kholodnitskii are now under investigation in Ukraine for taking a $5 million bribe from Burisma’s founder and former Ukrainian Minister of Ecology and Natural Resurces Nikolai Zlochevskii in exchange for closing a case opened against him for illegally acquiring funds for the stabilization given by the National Bank of Ukraine to Real Bank.[103]

The Flynn Frameup

The Michael Flynn case did not include Ukrainian participants as far as we know, but it was tied to the Manafort Russiagate falsification and involved members of a diaspora with a very similar nationalist antagonism towards Russia—the Polish diaspora. Like the other elements of Ukrainegate, it has been completely overturned, and he has been exonerated of any wrong being after being indicted, convicted and imprisoned for allegedly giving false evidence to FBI investigators regarding his telephone calls with Russian ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak. The FBI was aware there was nothing to the story yet sent two agents to meet with him off the record, after which he was charged as if he had been giving testimony in an official investigation. FBI Director James Comey reported to President Obama in a Intelligence Community briefing for him after an original briefing had put responsibility for the DNC hack on Putin that Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak were “potentially” cause for not sharing sensitive intelligence with Trump’s transition team in a White House meeting just two weeks before Trump’s January 2017 inauguration. Susan Rice sent a CYA (cover your ass) email to herself containing her notes on the meeting, which emphasized that Obama required that the investigation be handled “by the book” (a phrase appearing three times in the email) and opened the meeting by saying he was “not asking about, insisting or instructing anything from a legal perspective.”[104] However, the meeting also saw both Comey and Obama’s fixer, VP Biden, pose the idea of charging Flynn on the never used before Logan Act against sedition.[105]

The meeting also was attended by Deputy Attorney General Sall Yates and National Security Advisor Susan Rice.[106] Indeed, Yates has claimed that she was kept in the dark by Comey about the Flynn investigation and only found out from Obama on the day of the January 2017 meeting. She also insisted to Comey to no avail that the Trump team be informed of the Flynn-Kislyak tapes, but this was never done.[107] One wonders why if Obama, Comey, and Biden regarded Flynn a security risk the administration did not simply alert the Trump team? This sugests the Flynn investigation’s real purpose, one that needed to be kept secret from the incoming Trump administration until the plan ensued. The response to this query can be found in the fact that the same Obama administration was even considered blocking Trump’s inauguration (see below).

When Yates decided that she would inform the Trump team, Comey responded that a team of two investigators would be sent to talk with Flynn. They were the now discredited FBI agent Peter Strzok and another FBI agent Joseph Pientka—two men of Polish background, not Ukrainian, but an equally anti-Russian immigrant diaspora. Several of Chalupa’s colleagues were also Polish. Such peope very likely helped to bias domestic law enforcement as well as American foreign policy away from the rule of law and balanced U.S. national interests. Although Pientka seemed perhaps to have reservations about the process, Strzok and the FBI’s “7th Floor” stopped the bureau from ending its Flynn investigation in early January 2017 even though investigators had uncovered “no derogatory information” on his activities. Emails between the married Strzok and his girlfriend, then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others were discussions of how to stop Trump from assuming the presidency and continue investigating Flynn, including considering using the Logan Act.[108] Strzok was deeply involved in the falsified case from the beginning, opening up ‘Operation Hurricane’ to bring down Trump and deploying the falsified affidavit used to secure the FISA wiretap go-ahead and set off the entire sordid affair.[109]

This, as with the Manafort case, the Flynn frameup has been found to have been falisifed, rendering again the Obama-DP narrative as a fake designed to arrest, disenfranchise, and otherwise repress opposition forces. Trump has now appointed a special counsel to investigate Operation Hurricane in order to ensure Biden cannot halt the investigation upon coming to office as he attempted to do in Ukraine when that country’s prosecutor began to investigate Hunter’s corrupt activity.

The Steele Dossier Forgery

For reasons that remain unclear, Chalupa met with convicted felon Ariel Kimberlin to discuss Russia’s alleged involvement in cyberattacks during the presidential campaign.[110] Her other contacts and operatives connected with that operation would prove more useful. Ali’s Leshchenko also was a source of supposed Russian dirt on Trump fed to Hillary Clinton’s opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, that commissioned the infamous and entirely false ‘Steele dossier,’ compiled by former British MI6 operative Christopher Steele, and received payments and a condo around the time Manafort was forced to step down.[111] Steele’s dossier was being compiled for the Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC by GPS Fusion research group in summer 2016, when Ali Chalupa’s email to the DNC leadership mentioning two different Trump projects she had afoot and her having put Ukrainians in touch with journalist Michael Isikoff. Also, Crowdstrike was hired by Perkins Coie, the law firm that was retained by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC and hired Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS to produce the infamous anti-Trump “dossier.”[112]

We now know that not only did Obama, Clintons, FBI, and intelligence agencies knew the Steele dossier was garbage. When the Crossfire Hurricane team was using it to win a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, they knew that the dossier’s primary sub-source, Igor Danchenko, had been assessed as a possible national security threat and the subject of a previous FBI counterintelligence investigation.[113] He was a close associate of the impeachment hearing’s ‘star witness’, DP-tied Brookings Institute and NSC European Affairs director Fiona Hill. When the FBI interviewed Danchenko for the dossier case, he claimed his sources were but close acquaintances and friends. None of the dossier’s claims – from ‘golden showers’ to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s ‘trip to Prague’ to meet with Russian intelligence – was true.[114] Thus, while Danchenko’s information may or may not have been Russian disinformation, it was more importantly bad information that should have been vetted but was not because the DP-controlled siloviki, like the DP-dominated mass media, found the disinformation politically beneficial in the battle with Trump.[115] Worse yet, the FBI knew when the dossier was published in January 2017 precisely who Steele’s primary sub-source was and his utter lack of qualifications, connections and valid intelligence on any Trump activity in Russia and Trump-Putin ties. Yet special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller continued working and the media kept asserting ‘Trump collusion’ for years based on the false dossier.

It appears that the Washington conspirators recruited or were in cahoots from the outset with foreign intelligence services, such as MI-6, as a way of circumventing U.S. laws limiting U.S. law enforcement’s ability to gather information on American citizens, wherefrom hailed Steele.[116] Perhaps related is the following from a court brief: “Burisma Holdings Ltd. finances Atlantic Council (Ukraine) and associated rogue operatives from USDOS [U.S. Department of State], FVEY [Five Eyes intelligence alliance of U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand], and Crowdstrike, through Privatbank” [Words in brackets not in original] (From document from an investigative company submitted to the court handling Hunter Biden’s paternity case dealing with his failure to make payments in which Hunter Biden was granted upon certain conditions not to have to submit any financial records on sources of his income covering the last five years; that is, from the time he began ‘working’ for Burisma.[117] In other words, the plot to keep Trump out of the Oval Office also may have been a West-wide intel effort beyond the sordid players discussed in this working paper heretofore, with the Russians inserting disinformation to fill in the gaps.

In autumn 2016, before and after the election, bits and pieces of the dossier were leaked to the press. On 14 September the dossier’s false ‘golden shower’ story and claims Trump paid bribes to keep things quiet appeared. This was followed by speculation that Trump’s cavorting with the prostitutes who supposedly provided the ‘shower’ in Moscow was captured on video by Russian intelligence, and Putin was already in a position to blackmail the soon-to-be-elected president. In the month before the election the false claim was published that Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen had met with Kremlin operatives in Prague. The dossier was published in its entirety by BuzzFeed in January 2017 just a week before Trump’s inauguration, when, as we now know, the Obama administration was doing everything in its waning power to prevent the legally elected president from assuming office, including perhaps even delaying or preventing the inauguration, as a former Defense Department official recently revealed. According to this Defense official, for months there was discussion of the possibility of simply not handing over the presidency to Trump.[118]

What was going on behind the scenes in the bowels of the siloviki in those pivotal months? DP contractor GPS Fusion and Steele scrambled to finish compiling and drafting the final version of the dossier. It hired just fired FBI official Nellie Ohr to gather compromising materials on Trump and to review the Steele dossier.[119] She was and is the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, also Director of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, who focused on Eurasian oligarchs and was involved in the FBI’s efforts to use the Steele Dossier to obtain FISA warrants. He illegally provided false information on Steele and the dossier to FISA in order to get the FISA order to allow eavesdropping on the Trump campaign, which led to the falsified case against Gen. Flynn and the Manafort case, mischaracterized as Russiagate, when in reality Manafort only worked for Ukraine. Bruce Ohr worked as go-between GPS Fusion and Steele. Steele contacted Mr. Ohr in January 2016 to set up a meeting in London. After Trump’s ‘surprising’ victory over Clinton, the Democrats’ conspiracy kicked into high gear, amounting to an attempted stealth coup against first president-elect and then president Trump. On 20 December 2016, Justice’s Bruce Ohr handed to the FBI investigation the research his wife, Nellie Ohr, had done after being hired by Clinton campaign/DNC contractor, Fusion GPS, to work on the Steele dossier.[120] Also, Steele shared on 30 July 2016 some of his anti-Trump evidence with Ohr, who then took it to the top of the FBI. So Steele was working with one Ohr in Justice and another at Hillary’s contractor, GPS Fusion. Moreover, Ohr and Steele were in touch frequently through all of 2017, as Democrats conducted congressional hearings and then on 17 May 2017 appointing former FBI Director Robert Mueller to expand the investigation of Trump, thereby harassing the president; something that continue throughout Trump’s first term, crippling his presidency.[121] In other words, the Democratic Party was passing material from the still unpublished Steele dossier compromising president-elect Trump through a direct channel to U.S. siloviki law enforcement officials, who were Democratic Party members, in the effort to overthrow Trump before and after inauguration, depending on higher ups’ decision.

At the same time, then-FBI’s FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok was knowingly using doctored and false data in the Steele dossier in order to acquire a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to begin spying on the Trump campaign and prevent him from becoming or remaining very long president. On 15 August 2016, Strzok sent to Lisa Page a message reading: “I want to believe the path you threw out in [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s] office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy.” This is a reference to the Steele dossier, which could be used to sink either candidate, president-elect, or president Trump depending on release or FBI or other siloviki or state action.[122] Four days before securing the FISA warrant targeting the Trump campaign, the FBI was alerted that the dossier contained false information. Trump adviser Carter Page had denied to an undercover informer ever knowing no less meeting a key senior Russian official as FBI agents were preparing to allege to a court, according to a text message made public Thursday by Senate investigators. This is evidenced by a 17 October 2016 text message from an FBI employee whose name is redacted to Strzok, who was heading the so-called Crossfire Hurricane ‘investigation’ into the manufactured allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. This means that senior FBI officials knew there was ‘no there there’ in the allegations of collusion by Page or Trump with the Kremlin. Nevertheless, they kept in their FISA request the claim that Page had met with Kremlin operatives.[123] In winning the 21 October 2016 warrant from the FISA court targeting Page on Oct. 21, 2016, Strzok’s team nevertheless directly claimed that Page had met Russian intelligence officer Diveykin and another sanctioned Russia official, RosNeft’ chief Igor Sechin as asserted in the Steele dossier: “According to Source #1 … Diveykin … had secretly met with Page and that their agenda for the meeting included Diveykin raising on dossier or kompromat that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate #2 [Trump] and the possibility of it being released to Candidate #1’s [Clinton’s] campaign.”[124] The FBI’s hiding from the FISA court this key revelation was noted in famous footnote467  in Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December 2019 report uncovering the FBI politically-motivated and falsified Russia collusion probe.[125]

Other text messages from Strzok’s FBI phone demonstrate that the agency was hurrying to get the Page FISA warrant approved before Election Day 2016 and that the FBI also lied about it when it opened its ‘counter-intelligence’ probe into the imagined Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Rather than the 31 July 2016 date given, it appears matters had been opened at least as early as 28 July 2016, when Strzok texted his mistress and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to open discussion about “our open CI investigations relating to Trump’s Russian connections.” The recently released Strzok texts offer revelations about the FBI’s very different decision–the one not to charge Hillary Clinton with crimes she committed by transmitting classified emails on her private email server as secretary of state.

Then the collective silivoki, Obama, and Biden decided to use the falsified investigations as a basis for various schemes to prevent Trump from taking office. The infamous 5 January 2017 meeting in the White House endorsed the impeachment narrative, though Biden proposed deploying the Logan Act in some way. Present at that meeting were Obama, Biden, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, CIA Director Brennan, DNI Clapper, FBI Director Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. During this period, the aforementioned Defense directly participated in the so-called Five Eyes intelligence-sharing agreement involving NSA, its British counterpart GCHQ, and other allied nations and witnessed a significant spike in ‘end-around’ intelligence sharing between GCHQ and Obama’s NSA. The “end-around” use of foreign intelligence services to gather information on American targets evades the legal restrictions against spying on Americans that constrain NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.[126] It is perhaps no coincidence that the first information to help spark the investigation came abroad in Italy when Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud told Trump campaign official George Papadapolous that Moscow had Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails held illegally on her home server, information likely designed to prompt the Trump campaign to attempt to collude with Russia.[127] When in October 2019 the Flynn’s lawyer, the now famous Sydney Powell, appealed to a Washington DC court to provide two blackberries used by Mifsud for discovery in the case, the feds suddenly dropped the charges against Flynn.[128]

On 10 January 2017, just five days after this Democrat-silovik summit about what to do against Trump, the Ali-Isikoff-Ukrainians-Buzzfeed-concocted Steel Dossier told Americans Trump had compromised himself in Moscow with prostitutes about which Putin had ‘kompromat’ or compromising materials, that his campaign was beholden to the Kremlin, that his campaign colluded with Putin in the DNC hack, that Trump was a Putin agent and ‘Manchurian candidate.’[129] The irony of Democrats claiming that Putin had kompromat on Trump in their own trumped-up kompromat ought not be lost on anyone, though it certainly will be. A year later Isikoff was already backing away from the now entirely discredited Steele dossier,[130] the production of which was coordinated ultimately by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the FBI and would be used to gain FISA permission to tap the phones of Trump associates, expressing skepticism about the dossier’s claims, opening the door to the Manafort and Flynn prosecutions. We now know that the Steel Dossier was also part of the larger Obama Administration attempt to block Trump from occupying the Oval Office before or even after he was legally elected. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe at the time later told the Justice Department inspector general’s office that he believed the Steele reporting needed to be included in that ICA because “President Obama had requested ‘everything you have relevant to this topic of Russian influence.’”[131] The dossier’s preparation does not appear to reflect any Ukrainian or Ukrainian-American diaspora connection. However, Steele’s dossier had a Ukraine connection at least in its purpose if not preparation.  It “claimed that the Kremlin had cultivated the president-elect for at least five years, had fed him and his team intelligence about Secretary Clinton and other opponents for years, and agreed to use Wikileaks in return for policy concessions by the president-elect assuming he won the election—on NATO and Ukraine.”[132]

The Steele dossier was a forgery designed to lead to Trump’s impeachment, the sidelining of the Republican party from political power on a permanent basis, and the creation of a de facto, informal single-party form of soft authoritarian rule similar to that aspect of the Putin and other moderate authoritarian reigmes past and present.

The DNC Hack

The Malicious software “Fancy Bear X-Agent implant” began to be distributed in July 2014, but coded it was not usable until creator issues key.[133] The key was available by making a phone call to a Ukrainian military officer who made it available on Ukrainian military internet for a. By 21 December, the “Fancy Bear X-Agent implant” became universally available after a Russian first use against Ukrainian military’s devices. Thus, it became available first – after the Russian designers – to the Ukrainian military. From late 2014 and through 2016, it was circulated on Ukrainian military internet for a.[134] So like Novichuk, Russia is not the only source from which Fancy Bear was and is available. On 14 June 2016, the first claim emerged that the DNC’s servers had been hacked. One server, the DNC claimed, “had been breached for nearly a year, from the summer 2015 and the other in April 2016. The attacker was knocked out of its network during the weekend of June 11 and 12, 2016.”[135] The same day, the Washington Post reported: “Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach. The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.”[136] On July 22nd, WikiLeaks posted over 2 publications with 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the DNC, occurring days before the Democratic National Convention was to open in Philadelphia and the DNC announced its servers had been hacked.[137]

Trump and Clinton would win the respective parties’ presidential nominations and Trump would win the November election, despite a torrent of charges of his being under Putin’s control, and his having helped Russia hack the DNC servers and otherwise ‘colluded’ with the Kremlin. On 30 December 2016, the cybersecurity firm Wordfence reported that the software “was P.A.S., version 3.1.0. It then found that the website that manufactures the malware had a site country code indicating that it is Ukrainian” and “commonly available.”[138] But the narrative remained Russia, one easily written on American minds after the publication of the false Steele dossier days later.

In shock after Trump’s victory over Hillary in the presidential election, Ali’s sister revealed on Facebook that the Obama administration had teamed up with the global revolutionary ‘Anonymous’ hackers’ group at some point. On November 10th, 2016, Andrea Chalupa tweeted that hackers from Anonymous were working for Obama’s Justice Department on Election Day and were in contact with her sister Ali Chalupa: “.@inthehands @slavapestov All election day Anonymous hackers working w/DOJ updated my sister: they were at war w/RU hackers in our systems.”[139]Andrea also quoted “American hackers” who she says were promoting the Russian hack theory about Russians hacking the election: “.@inthehands @slavapestov Russian hackers entered US voting systems in summer.US hackers believe they downloaded malware to influence count.”[140] Odd as it is, Ali never mentioned the company that dealt with the DNC/DCCC hacks: Crowdstrike. Dmitrii Alperovitch, Crowdstrike’s chief technology officer, is Soviet-born Russian expat, one-time hacker, and perhaps a former intelligence officer[141] (this biographical detail does not appear in any of Alperovitch’s official biographies), who also is a senior fellow at the NATO-affiliated Atlantic Council. Andrea Chalupa may be Alperovitch’s wife, the identity of whom is impossible identify by researching the WWW.

Under Alperovitch, Crowdstike had hired numerous former US FBI and intelligence cyber officials;[142] the FBI is known to have been behind an effort to prevent Trump from becoming president by, among other things, seeking dirt on Trump in the form of the notorious and now discredited ‘Trump Dossier’ drafted by former MI6 agent Christoper Steele.

Document releases later would show that Obama administration officials and other Democrats — among others Evelyn Farkas, Adam Schiff, and Crowdstrike’s very own President of Services and former FBI man Shawn Henry — lied to the American people when they asserted with certitude that the Russians had hacked the DNC. At the FBI, Henry “oversaw half of the FBI’s investigative operations, including all FBI criminal and cyber investigations worldwide, international operations, and the FBI’s critical incident response to major investigations and disasters.”[143] The just released Congressional closed hearing transcripts reveal Henry stating under oath and in private that Crowdstrike did not have conclusive evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC and DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and local election systems, even while in public they insisted that they did. The alleged Russian hack seems to have had quite a curious bit of ‘jumping the gun’ in its pre-history/history; some of it curiously tied to the rise in Trump’s presidential fortunes. By late July 2015 Trump had become the clear front-runner, compiling the largest share of support for a republican candidate in the Quninnipiac survey in its history at 20 percent.[144] In September the FBI called the DNC to report its servers had “activity in the environment”, but its cybersecurity point man reported back that having looked on “a couple of occasions” that “he couldn’t find it…The FBI called. I looked. I couldn’t find it,” according to Shawn Henry – the executive in charge of the work done by Crowdstrike for the DNC that was the basis for the FBU’s and U.S. intel community’s accusations that Russia had hacked the DNC servers – in his testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Executive Committee on Intelligence in its investigate interview.[145] In mid-May Chalupa was already informing the DNC of upcoming developments in mid-May regarding Trump and the Russians; this was just days after Crowdstrike had just begun to analyze the DNC servers on 1-2 May 2016 and which it continued to do for four to six weeks, according to Henry in his testimony.[146] Chalupa not only claimed the DNC hack was a Russian op, but she also claimed, as noted in her 9 November 2016 Facebook post above, that the “Russians successfully hacked the election systems of more than half of the states in the country”—a claim never made by anyone else.

For his part, Henry could not state conclusively to the U.S. House of Representatives Executive Committee on Intelligence that Russian state actors, no less on Putin’s orders, hacked the DNC servers or even whether they were hacked at all. He said: “We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government.”[147] Describing the Fancy Bear group that Crowdstrike and the FBI sais hacked the DNC, Henry said that it is “likely” operating on behalf of a Russian intelligence service.[148] According to Henry’s statement to the same committee, when Crowdstrike did its analytical “remediation event” on 12 June 2016: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.[149] Oddly, Mueller and the Justice Department were never able to prove Russian hacking, never indicted a single American for any collusion with Russia – only Manafort for his activity in Ukraine like that conducted by the Podestas – and never indicted Julian Assange for accepting and publishing the illegally acquired data allegedly received from the Russian DNC server hack, while investigating a president-elect, then a sitting president.

Although it remains unclear whether the Russians played any role in the DNC hack or not, the evidence to date suggests that the conclusion that they did is no more plausible than that they did not. But more importantly, there was absolutely no truth to Hillary Clinton’s and the DP’s claim that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the DNC and ‘stole the election’ in 2016.

The same is true with regard to other better documented Russian cyber activity during the run-up to the 2016 elections, including both hacking state and local voter rolls and other election data and the highly exaggerated St. Petersburg ‘troll farm.’ The scope of these more real and sophisticated Russian operations appears to have been limited. The report of the Senate Intel Committee Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Elections states that the Committee found the intelligence determining that active measures were undertaken by the Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU (Main Intelligency Administration), to be “credible,” it “does not know with confidence what Moscow’s intentions were. Russia may have been probing vulnerabilities in voting systems to exploit later. Alternatively, Moscow may have sought to undermine confidence in the 2016 U.S. elections simply through the discovery of their activity.”[150] Although the FBI and DHS found that in summer data exfiltrations did occur, for example, from the Illinois’s voter registry, there is no evidence that vote tallies were altered or that voter rolls were modified.[151] There were also active measures events in October 2016, but “many were unrelated to Russia.”[152] The number of states targeted, susually, “scanned” as part of what is described as, “reconnaissance,” is blocked out in the report, but an “initial” assessment of 21 states at most were targeted is mentioned. Follow-up showed at most 15 states were scanned, and the committee report rejected one Obama administration official’s claim that all 50 states were hit.[153] One section of the report says that August 2018 active measures observed show “some indications the activity might have been attributable to the Russian government” (my emphases), hardly an open and shut conclusion.[154]

Similarly, in the case of the infamous ‘troll farms,’ the effort was meager compared with the scale of U.S. (pro-RP and pro-DP) spending and messaging on social media and may have been intended merely to drive traffic to monetized websites for profit.[155] Twitter found less than 4,000 accounts and 9 million tweets put out by the infamous St. Petersburg ‘Internet Research Agency’ (IRA), but this number covers a seven-year period, 2009-2016.[156] In election year 2016, the IRA put out over 57,000 Twitter posts, 2,400 Facebook posts, and 2,600 Instagram posts, but these numbers increased significantly in 2017 and compared with a U.S. population of nearly 400 million is truly miniscule.[157] Furthermore, the IRA spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook advertisements as the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump campaigns.[158] Moreover, Twitter found that IRA propaganda concentrated equally on influencing opinion in the U.S. and abroad.[159] A Duke University study found no evidence that interaction with Russian trolls over a one-month period in late 2017 influenced users’ politics or behavior. Moreover, Russian trolls “might have failed to sow discord because they mostly interacted with those who were already highly polarized.”[160] It seems Americans had already polarized themselves in the new conflictive political culture that divides Americans into minority ‘victims’ and white male ‘oppressors,’ minority saints and racist sinners, ‘progressives’ and ‘fascists’, good and evil. Many of the IRA fake account adds and posts had nothing to do with the election, and the most popular of its Facebook ads was simply a pro-police piece.[161] Moreover, the Justice Department at one point denied it was claiming that the Russian government was behind the IRA’s activity, and eventually the charges brought against the IRA through an indictment of its parent companies Concord Management and Concord Consulting were dropped for lack of evidence.[162]

Moreover, it must be reiterated that absolutely none of the cyberintelligence active meaures or IRA influence activity was ever tied or was ever said to be tied to Trump or Republicans, except by Hillary Clinton or in statements that conflated the various Russian plots discussed above.

Despite the fake nature of all of the charges outlined above, with the possible exception of the DNC hack, in terms of having any connection with Trump whatsoever, DP operatives and former Obama administration officials, such as NSC Russia advisor and US Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, claimed Trump had exhibited an “unqualified embrace” of and “consistent track record of supporting” Putin. Other DP operatives, like Trump’s defeated 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton, did not bother to nicen appearances and just called him “Putin’s puppet.”[163] One wonders in what major policy area this ‘unqualified embrace’ is reflected: arms control, weapons deployments in Eastern Europe, opposition to sanctions?

The Coup de Grace: The Impeachment Fix

The forged impeachment of Trump was perhaps the clearest case of a Democrat-siloviki conspiracy to oust America’s legally elected president, using quasi-constititional methods based on falsehoods. It is also another case of a plot involving the Ukrainian thread.

The last gasp of the DP coup plot was the December 2019—February 2020 impeachment hearings. As the Russiagate narrative of Trump-Putin collusion and Russian hacking of the DP and Hillary Clinton crumbled, Democrat plotters seized on an ‘improper’ phone call by Trump made to newly elected Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskiy.[164] They charged that Trump had conditioned US military and economic aid to Ukraine on Zelenskiy’s agreeing to have Ukrainian law enforcement investigate the business dealings of former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden with the shady natural gas company called Burisma and media reports of funds having been money-laundered from Kolomoiskii’s Burisma though his Privatbank to Hunter. In fact, such a request would not be illegal. Moreover, even a casual reading of the call’s transcript reveals there was no quid pro quo demanded or even implied by Trump. Democrats falsely claimed that it was a violation of US law for a US president to request an investigation of a US official, who might be violating US law, no less one preparing to run for president. Indeed, since then it has emerged that the FBI is investigating Hunter for tax fraud and money-laundering and that both Bidens lied about VP Biden’s involvement and receipt of funds from Burisma through Hunter. This explains why the Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi within hours of the news of Trump’s request to investigate the Bidens announced she would be seeking to introduce a resolution to begin an impeachment process against Trump. The Democrats apparently felt they needed to stop investigation into the Bidens, if necessary, by impeaching Trump.

Yet, at the same time, the Democrats were uninterested and indeed defended Biden’s self-acknowledged quid pro quo – one made in public and on video – in the form of an extortionist demand that an independent country’s president fire that country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, precisely by threatening to withhold $1 billion in assistance to Ukraine in order to block Shokin’s investigations into the Bidens. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma and stumbled across the Bidens’ activity, began investigating them, and was planning to interrogate Hunter. Contrary to claims the investigation was already closed when Biden had Shokin removed from the prosecutor’s office, Ukrainian prosecutors confirmed in December 2015 that they had sent their investigative files to detectives at the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). However, NABU, which is closely tied to the US Embassy in Kiev and financier and activist George Soros, covered up the case.[165] Likely connected to this were several visits to CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella in the White House during this period. On 9 December 2016, Daria Kalenyuk, co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded and NABU-connected Anticorruption Action Center or TsPK in Ukraine, an organization that vigorously lobbied for the creation of an alternative anti-corruption body, NABU.[166] Soros sent emails on U.S. Ukraine policy to Ciaramella and other U.S. officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who played a major rol in covering up the truth about the opposition’s snipers massacre on maidan on 20 February 2014 leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government.[167] A month after the Kalenyuk meeting, on 19 January 2016, NABU head Artyom Sytnik and head of Ukraine’s Special Anti-Corruption Procuracy or SAP, Nazar Kholodnitskii visited Ciaramella at the White House, where they almost certainly discussed the Biden Burisma corruption case.[168]Four months later, in April 2016, in the midst of the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy in Kiev pressured the Ukrainian government to break off its investigation of both the U.S. aid funds’ disappearance and Kalenyuk’s TsPK, all part of an overall investgation by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office into whether $4.4 million in U.S. assistance funds to fight corruption in Ukraine had been improperly diverted.[169]

On Feb. 2, 2016, some two weeks before the Latvian authorities’ request arrived in Kiev, the Ukraine prosecutor general’s office received a court order to re-confiscate the assets of Burisma’s founder Zlochevskii and seized his luxury car and other items.[170] In late February, according to U.S. documents released under FOIA (the Freedom of Information Act), Burisma’s American representatives pressed the U.S. State Department to try to help end the corruption allegations against the company. You can read those documents.[171] However, the Obama administration, led by its point man for Ukraine, VP Biden, was pressuring Ukrainian Prosecutor Shokin to cease its work into Burisma. As numerous uncovered phone calls make clear, Vice President Biden and Secretary John Kerry were frequently discussing financial assistance in the context of political requirements they posed to President Pororshenko.[172] Biden eventually securing Shokin’s dismissal during a trip to Ukraine in March 2016, by threatening to withhold $1 billion of dollars in US financial assistance, as Biden openly stated at a January 2018 Council of Foreign Relations talk witnessable on a very available video: “I said: ‘If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired.’”[173] Eleven months later Trump was being impeached for a much less clear example of conduct the Democrats said constituted an impeachable offense. The Biden’s Burisma business ties occurred despite the fact that some at the U.S. State Department were apparently concerned about corruption surrounding Burisma if not Hunter Biden. Numerous State Department officials testifying during the Trump impeachment hearings noted that Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest since his father ran the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy. One witness testified the State Department had even blocked a project with Burisma because it was concerned about charges of corruption at the company.[174] It was later revealed that US ambassador in Ukraine also warned about Burisma’s shady essence.[175]

Upon Shokin’s firing, Burisma’s American legal team arrived in Ukraine to meet with his replacement Yurii Lutsenko.[176] The Biden case was dropped in late 2016-early 2017 after Ukrainian prosecutors’ met with Burisma representatives and then US ambassador to Kiev, the Ukrainian-American Marie Iovanovich, read out to Lutsenko a list of people he should not investigate. Early last year, Ukrainian President Zelenskiy’s new Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka and a cleaned out NABU announced the Burisma investigation was reopened to look at the money laundering operations and a set of even broader issues, including possible embezzlement by Burisma founder Zlochevskii.[177] Ryaboshapka said Zlochevskii is suspected of the “theft of government funds on an especially large scale.” This could involve the ‘lost’ US assistance money laundered through Privatbank. It is possible those moneys were transferred not just to Biden but also to help the then new Burisma owner, Igor Kolomoiksii, fund the ultranationalist-manned volunteer battalions fighting in Donbass. We now have the Biden/Kerry-Poroshenko audiotapes cited above, which clearly demonstrate across several phone calls a quid quo pro on this issue and repeated Obama administration interference in the domestic affairs of Ukraine by Biden and Kerry, including on behalf of their own and their relatives’ illegal business activity.

Eric Ciaramella

The claim that it was in fact Trump who had undertaken an improper extortion play in his call with Zelenskiy came from a Democrat solivik ‘whistleblower,’ who turned out to be a politically agitated anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, and anti-Trump CIA analyst, who was not acting on his own. The same Eric Ciaramella, who met the Ukrainian ‘anti-corruption’ officials in the White House turned out to have no first-hand knowledge of the call and partnered with the real so-called ‘whistleblower.’ Of course, Ciaramella’s agenda was far less ‘whistleblowing’ than it was coup-plotting. Thus, instead of immediately filing his official whistleblower report, Ciaramella contacted the radically partisan Democrat chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, who was running investigations of Trump and his team on the basis of the noted false Steele dossier and the Democrats’ other trumped up data.[178] He claimed Trump had issued an ultimatum that Zelenskiy investigate the Bidens or do without the $1 billion in US assistance. Schiff subsequently lied, claiming that he did not know who the whistleblower was and went to extraordinary lengths to prevent his identity from being known. At congressional hearings Schiff repeatedly pounded is gavel when it even appeared that the committee’s Republic members might be giving information that might lead to Ciaramella’s identity. But in reality, Schiff was working closely with Ciaramella. One day after Trump’s call with Zelenskiy, he hired Ciaramella’s friend and co-worker in the intelligence community, Sean Misko to join his staff and shortly thereafter Schiff’s staff met with Ciaramella to advise him on how to make a complaint.[179]

The partisan fervency of Ciaramella was evident much earlier. He was removed from White House, where he had worked since 2015, for leaking false and negative stories about Trump in 2017, including the false story that Putin told Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey.[180] Ciaramella was deeply entrenched in Democracti partisan circles. His lawyers wer Democrat lawyers who worked for Russiagate coup-plotters Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joseph Biden, and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Director James Clapper. He worked for VP Biden and travled with him to Ukraine, perhaps on the very trip during which Biden extorted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating Hunter. One of Cairamella’s attorneys is a member of the #Resistance. But most damningly, Ciaramella worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa in the creation of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, given her 27 visits to to the White House.[181]

Alexander Vindman

The real whistleblower, who communicated with Ciaramella, was a naturalized American citizen born in Ukraine and Ukraine expert at the U.S. National Security Council (NSC), Lt. Col Alexander Vindman, the Democrats’ star witness during the House Select Committee on Intelligence hearings on the phone call and impeachment. Ranking Member Devin Nunes questioned Vindman about whether he had shared the contents of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call with anyone outside the White House. Vindman responded that he and with two people, naming State Dept George Kent and a person from the intelligence community, but Vindman, after consulting with his lawyer, refused to name the intelligence agency from which his other interlocutor hailed because it would likely expose the CIA “whistle-blower.” Interestingly, he claimed he heard Trump mention ‘Burisma’, but the transcript of the call shows no mention of Burisma. Also in his testimony, Vindman openly acknowledged he was concerned that Ukraine would lose influence in Washington allegedly because of Trump’s words.[182]

In yet another case of Ukrainian diaspora machinations against Trump – this one overlapping with the Democrat-siloviki nexus – Vindman appears to have had strong feelings of loyalty to Ukraine that clouded his judgment. Vindman’s false claim that Trump mentioned Burisma rather than the Bidens suggests that either Biden’s questionable activities in Ukraine were of concern to pro-Ukrainian elements within the US security apparatus and/or he was attempting to provoke Democrats into action against Trump by referencing Burisma. Indeed, according to his direct superior in the National Security Council (NSC), NSC European Affairs Senior Director Timothy Morrison saw Vindman as “unreliable” and of “questionable judgment.” Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from discussions with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine. Vindman had an “unfortunate habit” of defying the executive branch’s chain of command, according to Morrison, whom Vindman circumvented in his ‘whistleblowing’ and instead went to Deputy Secretary of State George Kent and Ciaramella. In his congressional testimony at the Democrat-led impeachment hearing Vindman testified that he had never spoken directly with President Trump, but advised Ukrainian President Zelenskiy on how to conduct himself in communicating with Trump.[183] Morrison put a damper on Democrat claims of an extorting quid pro quo and Vindman’s claims noting that he had no concerns that “anything illegal was discussed” in the phone call and that Ukrainian officials had not even been aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until a month after the July 2019 Trump-Zelensky call.

Another former colleague of Vindman’s assesses him much as Morrison does. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman, a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart, characterized Vindman as “a political activist in uniform” who “really talked up” President Barack Obama and denigarated America and called Americans, in the Democrat Party fashion, “rednecks” in front of Russian military officers. Hickman said in October 2019 tweets that then Maj. Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013 at a Combined US-Russian exercise called ‘Atlas Vision’ in Grafenwoher, Germany.” Vindman had been assigned to the Joint Multinational Training Command within USAREUR (US Army Europe) and attended US-Russian exercises that were conducted in “Virtual Battle Simulations 2 (VBS2) classrooms simulation.” Under ‘Atlas Vision’ Vindman coordinated with the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade. Hickman was in charge of all simulation planning and assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.” Vindman denigrated Americans and praised Obama in speaking with “U.S. and Russian Soldiers, as well as the young officers and GS employees about merica, Russia, and Obama.” Specifically, Hickman noted:

“(Vindman) was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of (sic) uncomfortable.”

“He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS [civil service]employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed.”

“One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American’s falsely thinking they’re exceptional, when he said, ‘He [Obama] is working on that now.’ And he said it w/a snide ‘I know a secret’ look on his face. I honestly don’t know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say.”

“Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama’s plan, etc., I’d had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I’ll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself.”

“The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as [2013]. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you…he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!”[184]

Hickman’s former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr at the time, Thomas Lasch, corroborated Hickman’s account on Twitter.[185] Vindman was fired from his NSC position after Trump’s impeachment acquittal, escorted from the White House back to the Defense Department from which he had been asigned to the NSC. His twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgenii Vindman, also on the NSC staff, was also fired.[186]

So as with the previous attempts to block or remove Trump from the presidency, the constitution’s solemn impeachment process was desecrated by a cabal of agitated Democrat, pro-Ukrainian, and Ukrainian-American activists pursuing a partisan foreign and a cover up former VP Biden’s wrongdoing.

Unfree and Unfair elections

One sign of a regime that is an ‘illiberal democracy’ in political science terminology, or a weak democracy or soft authoritarian regime are elections that are neither fully free nor fully fair or that are unfree and unfair altogether. With the 3 November 2020 presidential election, we can safely assert that an election was held in America that falls into the first category of partially free and fair elections. This was the logical and inevitable finale of the creeping Democrat-led authoritarianization, Putinization, and Ukrainization of the United States. In terms of implementation, the 2020 presidential election will go down in American history as the the first partially unfree and unfair election in U.S. history— unfree and unfair, marred by a slanted playing field created by a bought and sold media (including major TV channels, newspapers and social media) and massive election fraud—all favoring and carried out by Democrats.[187]

Unprecedented voter fraud carried out before and during the election: mail-in fraud by multiple ballots and originating at fake or non-residential addresses; postal workers backdating ballots; ballot harvesting; poll workers (videotaped) filling multiple ballots out at the polls; creating loose registration and voting certification rules such as not requiring signatures or postmarks; keeping thousands of dead people on the voter rolls and sending them ballots; using faulty ballot counting machines that switched votes from Trump to Biden; closing the vote counting in Georgia and several other swing states so that Republicans observers went home and then and the counting resumed in their absence; and contracting out to Democrat oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg the organization of elections through special, unsecured ballot drop-off boxes to boost only Democratic turnout, and much more. These practices proved to have been rampant in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, as reflected in state assembly hearings (see the ‘Appendix of Election Fraud Hearings, Reports, and Data’ below). For purposes of space, I will focus briefly on only a few of these fraudulent practices that justify Republican and any objective citizen’s claim that the presidential election was either stolen or that by virtue of the massive fraud its results are illegitimate. All the sources for this are listed in the Appendix.

The Dominion voting machines proved to lack security and were likely used to commit considerable fraud beyond all the various handling and falsification of ballots noted above. There are numerous reports made at state assembly hearings held in all the swing states listed above by both Republican and even some Democrat election observers of repeated feeding of ballots into and insertions of flash discs into the tabulating machines. In one state, 47 USB flash drives have gone missing.[188] In one acknowledged case in one Michigan county, the machines’ tabulators switched some 3,000 votes from Trump to Biden and thus the victory in the county.[189] The ‘glitch’ was caught and fixed, but the incident was later reformulated as ‘human error’ by the Democrat Michigan Secretary of State, as a technology malfunction would make the vote count invalid and threaten the legality of the election.[190] More on the Dominion tabulating machines is in the Appendix below.

In addition to the various methods of outright cheating, fraud, and falsification, loopholes in the law were used by DP oligarchs to create an uneven playing field not just by way of media bias but by violating Americans’s right to equal access to the electoral process. Republican election monitors were repeatedly harassed, prevented from observing the ballot tabulation process, and when they politiely protested were often expelled from voting precinct counting areas, as reported by tens of such obervers, who submitted affidavits and testified at state assembly hearings in each of the swing states noted above. Links to these hearings are in the Appendix below. Perhaps even more disturbing was an effort organized by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to privatize the election process in order to favor DP voters and Biden’s candidacy.

Zuckerberg would go further than censorship in helping to create an uneven playing field in the 2020 elections in order to defeat the Republic Party’s candidate by funding a massive program to drive high turnout only in very pro-Democratic districts, helping to create the first unfree and unfair presidential election in history since the civil rights movement (see below). By May 2020, violent BLM and Antifa riots violently rocked America’s streets. Not only was there not a single word of condemnation from the DP or Soros, but media, much of it tied to Soros praised the violence burgeoning on terrorism. Today’s Parvus declared his intent to push for Trump’s removal or, in lieu of that, for revolution: “Even before the pandemic hit, I realized that we were in a revolutionary moment where what would be impossible or even inconceivable in normal times had become not only possible but probably absolutely necessary.”[191] This explains why Soros’s OSF and other Soros-tied and -funded organizations gave money to BLM and Antifa but also why Zuckerberg was encouraged to rig the electoral system in favor of the DP.

Facebook’s chief issued several hundred million dollars in grant money, in particular to a rather obscure foundation, the Center for Technology and Civic Life, to harvest voters and ease their voting process in Democrat-controlled key urban areas mostly in the swing states. Special targets were the cities of Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee, where much of the 2020 voter fraud is being reported. A long excerpt from a research report analyzing the ways in which Zuckerberg’s money slanted the playing field and broke the law is worth citing here:

(I)n March 2020, David Plouffe, former campaign manager for President Barak Obama, published his book entitled A Citizen’s Guide to Defeating Donald Trump. At the time, Plouffe was working for the charitable initiative of Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. On page 81 of his book, Plouffe correctly identifies that the 2020 general election will come down to a “block by block street fight” to turn out the vote in the urban core, a key stronghold of Democrat Party votes. Plouffe specifically highlighted high turnouts in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia as the key to a Democrat victory. Soon after, we witnessed the rumblings of a previously sleepy 501(c)(3) organization entitled the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million. CTCL began sending agents into states to recruit certain Democrat strongholds to prepare grants requesting monies from CTCL. For example, CTCL inked a $100,000 grant to the Mayor of Racine, WI in May of 2020 directing the Mayor to recruit four other cities (Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request of CTCL. This effort results in these cities submitting a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15, 2020 to CTCL and, in turn, receiving $6.3 million to implement the plan. This privatization of elections undermines the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters. The provision of Zuckerberg-CTCL funds allowed these Democrat strongholds to spend roughly $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of the state.”

The “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” was not authored by the state, and considered state election integrity laws as obstacles and nuisances to be ignored or circumvented. Moreover, CTCL retained the right, in the grant document, to, in its sole discretion, order all funds returned if the grantee cities did not conduct the election consistent with CTCL dictates. Effectively, CTCL managed the election in these five cities. And this plan violated state law in, at least, the following fashion: 1) The plan circumvented voter identification requirements for absentee ballots by attempting to classify all voters as “indefinitely confined” due to COVID and later, after Wisconsin Supreme Court criticism, by ordering election clerks to not question such claims. 2) The plan initiated the use of drop boxes for ballot collection, significantly breaching the chain of custody of the ballot and failing to maintain proper logs and reviews to ensure all properly cast ballots were counted and all improperly cast ballots were not counted. 3) Initiated the consolidation of counting centers, justifying the flow of hundreds of thousands of ballots to one location and the marginalization of Republican poll watchers such that bipartisan participation in the management, handling, and counting of the ballots was compromised. These are but examples of radical changes in election processes that opened the door for significant fraud.” …

In Democrat Delaware County, Pennsylvania, one drop box was placed every four square miles and for every 4,000 voters. In the 59 counties carried by Trump in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters. Government encouraging a targeted demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as government targeting a demographic to suppress the vote.” …

Rock the Vote and other organizations inked agreements with blue state election officials to enter new registrations into state poll books. Such agreements are unprecedented and unwise. Previously, voter registrations were entered solely by election clerks, who have three important checks on their authority. These checks are: 1) they must be transparent subject to FOIA and open records laws; 2) they are geographically limited rendering audits manageable; and 3) they are politically accountable. No such checks apply to Rock the Vote.”

The Amistad Project’s concerns were amplified by the nature of a contract offered by Michigan’s health director to a subsidiary of NGP VAN, a Democrat fundraiser and data services company. Michigan granted the COVID tracing contract to Michigan VAN as a subsidiary of NGP VAN. The contract allowed this leftist organization to demand sensitive information from Michigan citizens at the threat of arrest. Citizens could be ordered to turn over medical records, travel information, the names of associates and friends, and other information with a significant privacy interest and of significant monetary value to a political fundraiser. Emails later obtained through FOIA requests demonstrate Governor Whitmer’s political director was involved in suggesting to the health department that they not directly contract with NGP VAN because of possible political fallout. Governor Whitmer’s staffer recommended NGP VAN create a Michigan subsidiary and that the subsidiary become a subcontractor so as to conceal NGP VAN’s involvement. When this information became public, Whitmer claimed she was unaware of the agreement and faced with public pressure, she rescinded the contract.[192]

These unprecedented extra-legal and illegal election processes and institutions opened the way for involvement of radical DP and DP-tied elements (likely many BLM and Antifa members) to participate in the vote harvesting, submission, counting, and security, explaining much of the rampant fraud and initimidation.  

The extent to which America’s previously democratic political culture has been utterly destroyed by our universities, media, the Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Soros, and their ilk was demonstrated well recently. Democrat operative, New York Times writer Lawrence Friedman, brazenly called on Democrats to effectively break election law by moving to Georgia and registering to vote, thereby flooding the state with illegal new voters to decide the two Senate race runoffs that will decide whether the DP will have a majority in the upper house in addition to one in the lower House of Representatives while possibly occupying the White House. “I hope everybody moves to Georgia, you know, in the next month or two, registers to vote, and votes for these two Democratic senators,” Friedman said.[193] Former DP nomination candidate Yang announced he and his wife were moving to help the DP senatorial candidates in Georgia—a signal that might inspire others to do so.[194] This is Russian ‘carousel voting’ fraud system on a new scale that even Putin’s United Russia party would not dare attempt. With such ‘carousels’, transplanted ballot migrants would be voting twice in the 2020 campaign’s senate races, assuming they voted in senate races in their actual home states. There has been much evidence showing that DP interstate carouseling operated in some of the swing states where other forms of fraud occurred in the 2020 vote. In effect, either way, with the DP operatives’ calls to carousel to Georgia is effectively an admission of DP fraud in the 2020.

It is worth noting that one of the DP senatorial candidates in Georgia that Freidman and Yang want to support is one Reverend Raphael Warnock. A propoenent of the black supremacist racial theory ‘black liberation theology’, Warnock has praises Obama’s ‘spiritual’ mentor, the Reverend Wright, who is infamous for his ‘preaching’: “God damn America.”


So, we have come full circle. A society that no longer treasures or even care or knows its founding principles cannot stand. A general political cultural decline and evisceration have occurred over several decades now. It includes not only penetration of radical ideologies, growing political and general corruption, a harshening and stupefaction of our discourse, and a deepening polarization. With the political mines planted by Obama’s smooth denegration of people ‘clinging to their Bibles and their guns’ and Gramscian insinuation of radicals into all the country’s institutions, from the courts to the military, the country has been pushed to the edge. Regardless of whether or not Democratic candidate and former VP Joseph Biden is inaugurated and enters office on 20 January 2021 or not, the election as conducted on 3 November 2020 will go down in history either fraudulent or illegitimate. This will render Biden not just unpopular among Republicans, libertairians, and other conservatives, it renders him illegitimate.

Donald J. Trump, hardly a learned constitutionalist worthy of the title ‘successor to the funding fathers,’ stands now — besides the American people – as the only barrier holding back the authoritarians, whether they be the corruptionaires or the radical barbarians. The American people – most especially the liberal-left side of the aisle that has now become a barricade – allowed demagogues to take over the polity, culture, and discourse. Now all Americans are paying the price.

What is to be done? I am tempted to say nothing, but hoping against hope, I would propose at least the following steps be taken if Americans ever elect reasonable men and women to office again at the federal level:

  • Harsh term limits: 2 four-year terms for senators; 4 two-year terms for House reps; single terms for governors.
  • House and Senate votes on one issue at a time in single-issue bills, no inserting other issues into bills as is being done with the COVID assistance law.
  • Strict barriers to shut tight the revolving door between lobbying groups and public office.
  • An attestation of all the ‘siloviki‘ departments towards purging all politically agitated personnel, including career bureaucratic personnel, who have violated procedures or laws for politically motivated reasons.
  • A commission review of FISA courts rules, procedures, and practices and drafting of a new FISA law to include a broadening of amicus curiae program, in which outside legal experts are brought into cases to help safeguard civil liberties. More kinds of cases should be subject to mandatory amicus curiae use. It should be a federal crime to withhold exculpatory evidence from a FISA court for more than a few days. The FBI withhold such evidence for years from the FISA court in the case of Carter Page.
  • A libertarian ‘revolution.’ The role of the federal government in peoples’ lives must be circumscribed, whether it be in the economy, society, education, or race relations. These are not areas where the government can add any value, certainly none exceeding the damage it does when it intervenes in them.
  • Universities and media that engage in propaganda must be boycotted.
  • A reformation of the legal profession to depoliticize law schools.
  • Encoding into law the principle that if one engages in violence on the streets, then one gets a prison term.

Finally, the American crisis has global implications. By tainting the democratic image of America as the ‘shining city on the hill’ or as a model for others to follow without coercion or even excessive proselytizing, the potential for spontaneous global democratization is being profoundly eroded. The decline of democracy in America deprives the world of the passive model for democracy-promotion that the founding fathers saw in the new system to which their revolution gave birth and the phrase ‘shining city on a hill’ invoked. The American experiment’s waning may be the last blow to the overly exceptionalist model that drives today’s excessively ambitious, activist, messianic democracy-promotion missions and color revolutions abroad. This comes at a time when a truly disinterested shining city on the hill is desparately needed in order to combat the threats to human liberty posed by artificial intelligence and human-technological singularity.

In years to come, eyes across the world may strain to see and may not find that shining city built by men named Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Mason. They may ask: How did it wither at the very height of its triumph? Centuries from now historians may answer: by elite hubris, imperial overstretch, delusions of grandeur but perhaps most of all by its abandonment of the American ideal. They will note that at the Cold War’s end the United States of America had the opportunity to win the world for democracy by setting an ever improving example of republicanism and in their victory demonstrating magnanimity and generosity. Instead, America lost herself.



[2] Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (University of North Carolina Press, 1998), p. x.

[3] The Federalist Papers, No. 68.

[4] The Federalist Papers, No. 22.

[5] Jonathan Turley, “A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency,” 21 May 2014,

[6] Turley, “A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency.”

[7] Turley, “A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency.”

[8] Turley, “A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency.”




[12] James Sherk and Todd Zywicki, “Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? Taxpayer Losses Came from Subsidizing Union Compensation,” Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 2700, 13 June 2012, reports/2012/06/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-taxpayer-losses-came-from-subsidizing-union-compensation.











[23] and

[24];; and



[27] and





[32];; and

[33]; Alana Marsili, “Openly LGBTI and in Office: A Historic Election for Guatemala,” USAID, 20 November 2015,, last accessed on 15 December 2020.

[34] Open Society Foundations, “Understanding Sex Work in an Open Society,” last updated October 2015,, last accessed 15 December 2020.

[35] Kevin Jones, “For George Soros, Ireland Abortion Fight May Be First Step Against Catholic Countries,” Catholic News Agency, 2 January 2017,; last accessed 15 December 2020.

[36] Claudia Stoicescu and Rima Ameilia, “What’s Life Like for Women Who Use Drugs in Indonesia? It’s Time We Asked Them,” Open Society Foundations, 8 March 2017,; last accessed 15 December 2020.

[37] Maria Victoria Llorente, “After Decades of Conflict, Colombia Could Finally Be on the Precipice of Peace,” Open Society Foundation, 23 March 2016,; last accessed 15 December 2020.

[38] Eli Lake, “A Soros Plan, a Marginalized Israel,” Bloomberg View, 16 August 2016,, last accessed 15 December 2020.

[39] Gordon M. Hahn, Ukraine Over the Edge (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland Books, 2018), pp. 88-102, 135-40, and 163-8; Mike Gonzalez, “How Soros Money Is Corrupting Politics in This Small European Nation,” The Daily Signal, 2 March 2017,; Chris Deliso, “Macedonia’s Crisis Isn’t Going Away,” The American Interest, 5 March 2017, (accessed March 24, 2017); and Charles E. Hurst, Heather M. Fitzgibbon, and Anne M. Nurse, Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences (New York: Routledge, 2017), p. 174.

[40] Hahn, Ukraine Over the Edge, pp. 88-90.

[41] and

[42] and

[43] Hahn, Ukraine Over the Edge, pp. 197-209.



[46]; see also and



[49] John Solomon and Seamus Bruner, Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties (New York: Bombardier Books, 2020), pp. 79-51.

[50] Solomon and Bruner, Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties, p. 114.

[51] Solomon and Bruner, Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties, pp. 129-30.

[52] Solomon and Bruner, Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties, pp. 87-91.


[54];; and

[55] and




[59] and

[60] and

[61] and






[67] and


[69];; and

[70];; and

[71] EXCLUSIVE: Hunter Biden Audio Reveals Partnership With China ‘Spy Chief’… Joe Biden Named as Criminal Case Witness, or see

[72]; and



[75] and




[79] and





[84] See Carter Page, Abuse and Power: How an Innocent American was Framed in an Attempted Coup against the President (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2020) and




[88] ‘Ukraine: The Final Piece,’ The Blaze, 6 February 2020,, at the 1:01:10 mark in video.


[90] and

[91], for example see – and













[104] and


[106] See the email here:









[115],%202017%20Electronic%20Communication.pdf;; and


[117] See ‘Ukraine: The Final Piece,’ The Blaze, 6 February 2020,, at the 1:01:10 mark in video.



[120];; and

[121] and


[123] and






[129] and




[133], first time line graph.

[134] According to Crowdstrike itself: “On 21 December 2014 the malicious variant of the Android application was first observed in limited public distribution on a Russian language, Ukrainian military forum” ( Crowdstrike adds: “A late 2014 public release would place the development timeframe for this implant sometime between late-April 2013 and early December 2014.” Fancy bear, which Crowdstrike and the rest of the West claims was used to hack the DNC, was available by that time to any competent hacker, in particular in Ukraine and its armed forces where it was first distributed. “From late 2014 and through 2016, FANCY BEAR X-Agent implant was covertly distributed on Ukrainian military forums within a legitimate Android application developed by Ukrainian artillery officer Yaroslav Sherstuk,” Crowdstrike’s report pinning the hack on Russia noted ( It had been inserted into the Ukrainian armed forces’ app so Russian artillery could target Ukrainian artillery and prevent the latter from targeting Donbass rebel artillery, according to CrowdStrike founder and chief technology officer and Atlantic Council member Dmitrii Alperovitch ( and According to leading cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr, this means from this date forward this malware was available to all cyber actors, as once used any malware is discoverable, retrievable, and deployable for other would-be ‘hacktivists.’ Even in cases where malware has a Russian origination, it is not necessarily that it was used by Russians after first use. Carr notes that once deployed, such malware is out of control of the first user, can be “reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone,” and had been recently obtained by security firm ESET, concluding: “It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.” (Jeffrey Carr, “FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort,” Jeffrey Carr/Medium, 19 June 2016, Only Ukrainians — other than Russians, if Crowdstrike is correct – would have known about Fancy Bear for unknown period of time after its first use. If the Russian originators of the malware sold it, then it might not have been used by Russians at all.





[139] and; and

[140] and


[142] and



[145] U.S. House of Representatives Executive Committee on Intelligence Interview with Crowdstrike Executive Shawn Henry, Executive Committee, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Intelligence, 5 December 2017,, pp. 33-4.

[146] U.S. House of Representatives Executive Committee on Intelligence Interview with Crowdstrike Executive Shawn Henry, p. 26.

[147] U.S. House of Representatives Executive Committee on Intelligence Interview with Crowdstrike Executive Shawn Henry, p. 24.

[148] U.S. House of Representatives Executive Committee on Intelligence Interview with Crowdstrike Executive Shawn Henry, p. 48.

[149] U.S. House of Representatives Executive Committee on Intelligence Interview with Crowdstrike Executive Shawn Henry, p. 32.

[150] Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Elections,, p. 4, see also pp. 110-11.

[151] Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Elections, pp. 5-6, 22, and 38.

[152] Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Elections, p. 8.

[153] Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Elections, pp. 11, 14-19 and 12 and 20.

[154] Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Elections, p. 13.



[157] Tweets and retweets amounted to nearly 800,000—still a drop in the bucket of U.S. domestic and other international activity on Twitter. See





[162] And

[163] For Hillary Clinton’s comment see For Max Boot’s similar comment, see

[164] See the call transcript at


[166] and





[171] and

[172];;;;; and

[173];; and




[177];;; and


[179] and

[180] and



[183] and

[184] and

[185] and


[187] One can consider elections prior to that unfree and unfair at least for African-Americans, given their inability to vote and then after the 1960s Voting Rights Act residual difficulties in the south for African-Americans in voting.





[192]; pp. 3-6; see also and








Pensylvania hearing:


Georgia Fraud Court Filing:


Dominion tabulating machine operators can change votes, contrary to Dominion president’s testimony –


Sworn affidavits to court on fraud:;;






Trump lawyers’ filing:

US Senate Hearing:







About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr Analytics, and a Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group, Dr. Hahn is the author of The Russian Dilemma: The West and the Making of Russia’s Security Culture (McFarland, forthcoming in 2021), Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the “New Cold War” (McFarland, 2018), The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia’s North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland, 2014), Russia’s Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia’s Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media. Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.

%d bloggers like this: