What If There Was No Quid Pro Quo?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip The Hill


Yesterday, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland testified in his opening statement that there was a quid pro quo as to a presidential call with President Trump and a White House visit in exchange for Ukrainian President Zelenskyy committing to investigating Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 US election and investigating the Bidens. He also presumed that military aid was tied to the above commitment by Zelenskyy. The testimony went back and forth with Democrats and Republicans making their own arguments about Sondland's presumptions and the one thing that Trump said directly to him over the phone. "I want nothing. No quid pro quo".

To the media, Sondland's testimony was a "bombshell" Last night on ABC Evening News, David Muir and his correspondents highlighted Sondland's presumptions while explaining away what Trump actually said to Sondland, pointing out that this conversation occurred after the White House had become aware of the whistle blower's complaint. The media concluded that Trump was covering his backside. Meanwhilke, the headline caption on the TV screen was "Bombshell testimony". It was anything but.

At this point, it is pretty clear that the House will vote to impeach Trump, and the Senate will vote not to remove him. The Democrats seem to be pinning their hopes on some smoking gun that will show up proving there was a quid pro quo.  So what if this is true? So what?

My own common sense tells me that in all likelihood, there was a quid pro quo. Trump did want Ukraine to investigate that country's alleged involvement in the 2016 election and he did want them to investigate the entire Burisma scandal, which includes having an unqualified Hunter Biden on its board of directors and Joe Biden's successful demand that the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired if Ukraine wanted one billion dollars in aid.

In the case of Trump, Republicans point out that Ukraine got the aid, the phone call from Trump, and the meeting with Trump (at the UN) while no investigation was launched.

But let us assume that there was a quid pro quo. Is this not a common part of international diplomacy? For example, is there a quid pro quo when Trump conducts his diplomacy with North Korea? If Norea Korea halts its nuclear weapon program, the US will do this or that. Of course.

But Gary, you say: Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, who is a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Biden is his political rival.

True. But does that change things?

US foreign aid is hinged to the receiving country not being engaged in corruption, however vague that condition is. Ukraine is corrupt, as are many other countries receiving US aid. In return for our aid, they are supposed to at least demonstrate they are taking steps to fight corruption in order that they may be "certified". Often, that is a sham because it is deemed in our interest to continue aid to a particular country. When I worked with DEA in Thailand in the 1970s, that country was riddled with corruption-and still is. They get plenty of US aid. I could go on and on.

Part of the corruption angle in Ukraine is that they allegedly improperly engaged in meddling in out 2016 election. The controversy over Crowdstrike and DNC hacking, and whether it was done by Ukraine or Russia is a matter of dispute. It is not a matter of dispute that during the election, the Ukrainian ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing then candidate Trump. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington has confirmed that they were approached by a DNC operative during the campaign who tried to enlist their help in digging up dirt on Trump and Paul Manafort. Rightfully or wrongfully, Trump likely feels that he was the victim of a lot of dirty tricks during the election, and that Ukraine had a role. After all, a Ukrainian court issued a statement that there had been meddling by their country. So is Trump justified in asking Ukraine to investigate that matter? I think he is.

As to the more important matter of the Bidens, that is also a legitimate issue, and if Joe Boden gets the nomination, expect to hear much more about it in those campaign ads. Then-Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine and demanded that the president fire the chief prosecutor-who was investigating Burisma, a company accused of corruption, which had put Hunter Biden on its board of directors though he had no qualifications for the post. Biden told the president that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, Ukraine would not get the aid it had been promised-some one billion dollars. Within 6 hours, the prosecutor was fired. How do we know all this? Biden bragged about it on tape while speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations. Of course, he left out the information about his son being on the board of Burisma and that Burisma was under investigation.

Quid pro quo.

So let us assume the worst: Suppose Trump did have a quid pro quo that included an investigation of the Bidens, and let's assume he did it for purely political reasons. What is worse, the action of Trump in his phone call to Zelenskyy or Biden's demand to the previous Ukrainian president?

And here is another point: If Trump cannot ask for an investigation of Biden because he is a potential opponent in a future election, doesn't that give Biden-or anyone else in a similar position, literally, a license to steal? Is Biden immune from an investigation into his action simply because he is running for Trump's job? No.

Adam Schiff's Gross Mischaracterization of the Trump-Zelensky Call

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Today, Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, did something truly despicable. Already having seen the unredacted transcript of President Trump's July 25 conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, he then made up his own dialogue and read it into his opening statement. Below is what Schiff said today in opening the hearing with the testimony of National Intelligence Director Joseph McGuire.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/adam-schiff-makes-phony-trump-ukraine-phone-conversation-formal-statement-intelligence-hearing/

Here is the transcript itself as turned over to Congress. Nowhere does it say things like Trump telling Zelensky, " I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent".

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

Schiff is now claiming that his words were meant as a parody of what Trump told Zelensky. It is true that in his remarks, Schiff used terms like, "in essence" in presenting his version. But Schiff is not a stupid man. Far from it. He structured his words very carefully as to give the viewer a certain impression while adding just enough language to give him his escape hatch when his mischaracterization was pointed out-as it quickly was.

In addition, Schiff is not a man who deals in parody. Humor is not in his bag.He presents himself as a serious, reasoned, and  moral voice. It is a facade. Schiff is a deeply partisan politician who deals in cleverly disguised dishonesty. This is a man who for months claimed to have the evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians-evidence that has never materialized on a narrative that has been discredited by none other than Robert Mueller himself.

Now come this latest rabbit hole about Ukraine and Schiff is leading the charge armed with false information. Did Schiff, in his opening remarks, make any mention of the underlying issue behind the Trump-Zelensky conversation-that then VP Biden threatened the then-Ukrainian president with cancellation of one billion dollars in US loan guarantees if he didn't fire the chief prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings, who had mysteriously placed Joe's son, Hunter Biden, on its board of directors and paid him some 3 million dollars over the course of three years? Biden himself is on videotape telling an audience that he did exactly that and got the results he wanted. Should that not be investigated by both countries?

One can only pray that the vast majority of the American public will see this for what it is-the latest made up scandal in a never-ending quest to remove Trump from office.

Sweden: Nigerian Rapper Calld for Killing of Whites

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


"....shoot them"

Hat tip Samnytt and Gates of Vienna


A Nigerian-born rapper residing in Lund, Sweden has just come out with a statement about  killing white people. This showed up on his Instagram account which is open only for black people. The below report from Samnytt is translated from the Swedish by Fousesquawk. Editing and sub-titling by Vlad Tepes.

https://samnytt.se/rapartist-fran-lund-uppmanar-till-mord-pa-vita-skjut-dem/

Rap artist from Lund calls for death for whites" "Shoot them".


A YouTube profile and rap artist well known among young people has started a closed account on social media in which he invites only black people. In several video postings, he calls for murder of white people in Sweden. Samhallsnytt has (gotten into) the account and can now reveal how an immigrant Nigerian propagates racism to hundreds of young people. "If some white guy or white girl tries to talk shit about you-shoot them."

The well-known YouTube profile is "JCBUZ", who has 280,000 subscribers on his two YouTube accounts, in which he reviews current hip hop records in Sweden and shares his own gangster-inspired rap music. JCBUZ, who is really named Jesse Ekene Nweke Conable, is 22 years old and registered (residence) in Lund. According to the tax police, he immigrated from Nigeria in 2008 and now has Swedish citizenship.

On a newly registered and locked Instagram account under the name "barasvarta" (black only)  several video clips with JCBUZ have been uploaded. In the presentation text for the account, which has 465 followers up to now, followers can read: "Black Power in Sweden" and "Only for Blacks".

Samhallsnytt  has gained access into the account, where it is clear that only blacks should get access to the content. Below is a photo update from his account where he states that he does not allow any white people to join the group.

On Tuesday several video clips were uploaded on the account where the rap artist propagated murder against white people in Sweden.

Text above video:

"Created our group so we get it together"

JCBUZ states in a  post that he has created "our group" so that blacks will get together in the fight. He means that blacks "must take over".

Below is JCBUZ speech and the video clip:

Video link

"My brothers and sisters, my black brothers and sisters, I have an important message for you. I only want to say to you, my black brothers and sisters out there.- You are special and nobody is like you. Continue the war.

We will take over- we will be number one- one beautiful day we will become number one. We will take over over those whites here. Just like these whites took us as slaves, we will take them as slaves and treat them even worse.

But right now we're just fighting (among ourselves), we're going to be smarter, we're going to be faster, we're going to be the best at everything. We'll take their bitches and we'll take their money. To be perfectly honest, we will be the best race ever. This is only the beginning; it is starting small but believe me, we will grow and grow bigger. We will be the strongest group in Sweden - no one will dare mess with us. Just wait, a beautiful day.

The whites try to mess with us- then you know what will come (gun sign with fingers). We will show them how we do it. We are warriors, do you understand? We are African warriors- They are not on our level. This here is just the beginning. Black power. Black power.

If any white guy or white girl is trying to talk shit about you - shoot them! If they talk shit about your family - shoot them!"

Text below the video:

"Created our group so we will stick together"

JCBUZ says in a post that he has created "our group" for blacks to stick together in the fight. He believes that blacks "must take over".

Text of comment thread ( red box 1): "Up to now whites have seen us as their slaves. Even if they don't say it straight out, it is what they think. I swear everything- that is why I created our group-so we can get ourselves together."  

Red box 2

"Therefore, we must take over."

Text below photo of JCBuz making shooting sign.

CBUZ makes pistol sign on social media. Facsimile Facebook.

In the comments, a "Chidde" writes out his/her hate toward whites as they are unsocial and the type who all talk behind your backs and are racist. Further says Chidde  that whites "always get better grades and jobs".

”Fuck White People”

In several posts, the artist expresses his hate against whites. In one post with a noose is "Fuck White People", and then, "We blacks are the best"

"What do you think about white people?"

Several posts call for hate toward people with white skin color. One person writes, "They think they are better than us, but it was we who build everything up here."

"If a white boy messes (with me) I would shoot him."

In one post, a picture is shown with text that one cannot be racist if he isn't white.  Followers are then asked if they agree.

One person named "Abdi" states that he will squeeze the trigger if a white boy  talks bad with him.

Shows video clip when a white boy is hit

The account also shows a video clip where a white boy is wrestled down by a black boy in a gym. During the video post, is "black power" and then follows several jubilant comments where he is happy that the white boy is knocked down. 

No response from gangster rapper

Samhallsnytt has sought out JCBUZ Conable without results, both by telephone and email for a comment.

Update: Conable has commented on Samhallsnytt's article via his Instagram account with the following comment:

(Laughing emojis)

It is not clear if someone has reported the artist for hate towards an ethnic group.

Update 2: Conable has taken note of our article and now writes that he wants to "eliminate the snitch" ('informer-" Editorial note) in an update in his closed Instagram group.

Image at bottom in black:

"We have a snitch among us. He or she must be eliminated."

By Simon Kristoffersson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fousesquawk comment:  This is sick. Do I think it represents the thinking of all or even most black immigrants in Europe? No, I don't. But it should sound an alarm to Europe and their careless-reckless even - admission of migrants from the Middle East and Africa-largely Muslim nations, with scant or no attention paid to their backgrounds. So here you have in Sweden, an ungrateful Nigerian thug who advocates killing whites in the predominantly white nation that admitted him.

Sweden, you have a problem.

Congressman Adam Schiff Links Arms with MPAC

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Counter Jihad Coalition


The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) is a creation and arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. It has consistently criticized and condemned virtually every law enforcement action against Islamic terrorism in the United States. They have accused the FBI of entrapping Muslims who have been charged with plotting to join ISIS and/or carry out terrorist attacks in the US.  Along with other organizations like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim American Society, American Muslims for Palestine, and others, they are an insidious movement that pretends to be moderate, but in reality share the Muslim Brotherhood vision of an eventual world caliphate under sharia law.

So now, Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who represents part of the greater Los Angeles area, has joined with MPAC to go after all those white supremacists-while ignoring the multitude of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US and around the world. Schiff, who has most recently failed to produce an impeachable case against President Trump, has now aligned himself with  a despicable organization like MPAC.

https://www.mpac.org/blog/updates/how-we-are-tackling-this-new-wave-of-white-nationalist-violence.php

 "MPAC joined a federall task force on the Prevention of Targeted Violence against houses of worship." 

Federal task force? When I think of a federal task force, I think of something like DEA, FBI, ATF, state and local police teaming up to fight a particular crime problem. I have been part of "federal task forces" when I was a DEA agent. I don't know what MPAC is talking about here. Them teaming up with characters like Adam Schiff, who has his own politcal agenda, is a joke. They are simply  making a political statement.

As Congressman Schiff said in his own words, “I think MPAC is doing some really important work. In fact, the white paper that MPAC put together analyzing this problem, talking about its roots, talking about the transnational character of this threat is something that every Member of Congress should read.” 

"Last week, Congressman Schiff took the legislative initiative to counter this threat against our community and country. He introduced a bill that would create a federal domestic terrorism crime and could be applied to attacks like mass shootings in El Paso, Texas; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Charleston, South Carolina." 

(And Dayton, San Bernardino, Orlando, Ft Hood, Boston, 9-11, etc?)

Truth is, terrorist attacks in the US are, indeed, handled by federal authorities, who now also prosecute for hate crimes. There are certain factors involved which would take the case out of the hands of state courts, who can still prosecute mass killings depending on the motivation. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was tried and executed by the federal courts. The Charleston killer, Dylan Roof, who killed out of his hate for black people, was also tried on federal charges related to hate crimes. He is awaiting execution.

Whether Schiff succeeds in tightening up federal legislation on hate crime murders is not the point here. State and federal authotires can and should work together to insure maximum punishment for these kinds of attacks. No one is trying to protect white nationalists who commit violent acts here. It is a problem and it is growing. And nobody is advocating for hate crimes against Muslims.

At the same time, groups like MPAC are merely trying to shift the spotlight from the threats of Islamic terror attacks for their own purposes. They cannot be trusted, and Schiff should know better.

But he doesn't.

Palestinian "Intersectionality" With African-Americans

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


My friend David Swindle has written an interesting article for Middle East Forum about a presentation he attended at UCLA. The speaker was (hold on to your hat) another one of those dime a dozen professors whose goal in life is to help destroy Israel. His name was Michael Fischbach, a history professor at Randolph-Macon College. For you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies and History of Consciousness majors, that is located in Ashland, Virginia.

Fischbach's theme was about the "intersectionality" between the Palestinian experience and the African-American experience. And what is intersectionality, you ask? You don't wanna know, but David explains it in the below article. It's really too painful for me to write it all out here.

https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/59121/hijacking-black-history-to-bash-israel

Much as I hate to take Fischnach seriously, let me get serious here. Intersectionality, as David points out, is nothing more than a cynical attempt by one group to enlist the support of another group by claiming common victim status. In another words, Palestinians and American blacks are brothers here because they are both victims of a racist system. All it accomplishes is turning out more anti-Semites.

It should be pointed out that Jews were among the strongest supporters of the Civil Rights movement. Yet, it must also be mentioned that there is a degree of anti-Semitism among the African-American community-just as within the white community. This "intersectionality" movement, which is so widespread on college campuses, is not only divisive, but can only increase anti-Semitism. The common perception of Jews-which is inaccurate- is that they are simply the most "privileged" members of the "white privileged class". It is hardly surpring that the most demonized groups on campuses, no matter what the social justice warriors tell you, are whites and Jews.

It should also be noted that UCLA's Center for Near Eastern Studies, who hosted this event, is nothing but a hotbed of pro-Arab, anti-Israel, anti-West dogma.

This, Dear Readers, is what our kids are being taught in our universities.

Mueller Lays an Egg

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


I watched almost all of the two House hearings today with Robert Mueller testifying. If you watch the talking heads of Fox, CNN and MSNBC, you might think they were all watching different hearings. Fox is calling it a huge Democrat thud while CNN and MSNBC are reduced to talking points and the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump-as if that has any legal meaning, which it doesn't.

Everybody is pretty unanimous that Mueller's appearance and performance was pathetic. I don't say this to condemn him; he has had a distinguished life and career. Most everyone agrees, however, that he did not acquit himself well today. He did not appear prepared or even well-acqauinted with his own report.

Mueller had always stated that he would not go beyond what was in his report, and he tried to stick to that, declining to answer many questions from both sides. "I can't get into that," was his standard response. (Often, he was justified in not answering certain questions, at other times, he refused to answer questions about points in his report.) He appeared, old, tired, and and times, confused and not up to speed on his own report. In short, the Democrats did not advance their case against Trump.

During the morning session with the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller appeared to confirm to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) that he did not bring charges against Trump for obstruction because of the DOJ opinion  that a sitting president could not be charged with a crime. Then, in his opening statement to the Intelligence committee, he made a point to correct that and state that the decision not to charge was made independantly of that consideration.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) made what appeared to be some good points concerning one Joseph Mifsud and his role in pumping Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos for information and then lying to the FBI. In March 2016, Mifsud, a Maltese academic, met Papadopoulos in London and told him that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was Papadopoulos' reported statements about that to an Australian diplomat a month later that launched an FBI probe that eventually resulted in Papadopoulos pleading guilty to lying to FBI agents. Jordan asked why Misfud was never charged with lying to the FBI while Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were. Mueller would not answer.

The talking heads at CNN and MSNBC are making a big deal over the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump. The Republicans effectively brought out in the Judiciary hearing that it is not a prosecutor's job to exonerate. A failure to exonerate has no legal meaning because a prosecutor either charges or not. If no charges are brought, it is improper for a prosecutor to add that he or she was unable to exonerate. If you don't bring charges you say nothing. It is not Trump's or anybody else's burden to be exonerated of charges. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.

The mainstream media is also praising Mueller for strongly reaffirming that there was Russian meddling in our election, that it was not a hoax, and his investigation was not a witch hunt. I will agree with them and Mueller that the Russians did meddle; that was not a hoax. What was a hoax was the charge that Trump colluded with them. As for the witch hunt charge, that was not effectively refuted by Mueller today.

University of Michigan Professor Goes After.....John McCain?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Whatever disappointments I may have had with the late John McCain as a senator, I have always admired him as a great American, based mostly on his military record. Though I may have taken President Trump's side in policy disagreements he had with McCain, I have never cared for Trump's negative commonts about the late senator. John McCain is gone now, and I think on the whole, he served his country extraordinarily well. We should all let him rest in peace.

Unfortunately, University of Michigan comedian Juan Cole, who also carries the title of professor, seems to want to kick more dirt on McCain's grave. Rather than praise McCain for the classy way he ran his presidential campaign against Barack Obama, Cole goes to extreme lengths to try and detract from a positive moment McCain had during the campaign when he chastised a woman supporter who had called Obama an Arab. Apparently, Cole's stated purpose in attacking the late senator is due to praise McCain has received this week in contrast to the chants at a Trump rally in Greenville, NC when the crowd chanted, "Send her back", a reference to Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN), a woman who has spent the past several months since  becoming a congresswoman making highly offensive comments about American Jews and America in general.

Here is a link to one of Cole's recent blurbs on his blog, which he entitles, Informed Comment:

https://www.juancole.com/2019/07/mccains-response-exemplary.html

To make his tortured point, Cole refers us back to an article he wrote in 2008:

 "Later, another supporter told McCain, “I don’t trust Obama…He’s an Arab.”

McCain stood shaking his head as she spoke, then quickly took the microphone from her.

“No, ma’am,” he said. “He’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with.” ‘

McCain should have said, “there would be nothing wrong with being an Arab, but Obama is not.” The way he put it strongly implied that he had a low opinion of Arabs."

Aside from grasping at straws, this is hardly fair. McCain found himself in an improvised moment when he had to correct what the woman was saying. Unlike Cole, he didn't have the luxury of formulating words that Cole would have suggested hours, days or weeks after the fact. And as for Cole's comment about "shedding his last vestiges of decency", as he terms it, McCain demonstrated much decency (and courage) over his life, more than Cole could ever dream about. What is Cole complaining about-that the McCain campaign did say negative things about candidate Obama and his association with Bill Ayers, an unrepentent (to this day) Weather Underground terrorist become college professor? That is what campaigns do. Cole explains it that Obama was just a boy when Ayers was bombing and hiding from the police. True enough, but Obama wasn't a boy when he "was in the same room" with Ayres (Cole's words-not mine). Obama was associating with a radical who had merely ceased breaking the law. Unfortunately, Obama's associations with people like Bill Ayres, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and others was never fully investigated by the mainstream media. They simply chose not to. 

In addition, Cole proceeds to give us a lecture on what an Arab is and the fact that most Muslims in the world are not Arabs, not all Arabs are Muslims, etc. etc. etc. We don't need it, and furthermore, the crowd in Greenville said nothing about Arabs or Muslims. They voiced their disapproval of Omar for her litany of anti-Semitic, anti-American statements. Since Omar is an American citizen and cannot be deported, I personally would not have chanted, "Send her back". I have no problem, however, with Trump's invitation to her that she should return to her own crime-infested and dysfunctional community if she thinks we are so bad. (Whether that would be Somalia or the Little Moghadishu section of Minneapolis is not entirely clear from Trump's words, but no matter.) I personally would have no problem in telling her to her face that she should return to Somalia if she thinks so little of America.

Juan Cole is a leftist who is another one of those dime-a-dozen professors who hate Israel. He also has axes to grind against our own country, Republicans and conservatives while extolling the past and present glory of the Arab civilization (which is highly debatable). Such is his right, but it does not reflect well on him that he feels the need to drag the memory of Senator McCain through the mud.