12 Comments
User's avatar
Ray-SoCa's avatar

Not a lawyer, but the money laundering through seem pretty illegal. If a bank did it, they would be in huge problems. Same with individuals trying to hide over $10,000 in transactions.

I wonder how many elections this has influenced…

The Campaign Finance History of Letitia James, AG of NY Taunting Trump

https://www.uncoverdc.com/2024/02/28/the-campaign-finance-history-of-letitia-james-ag-of-ny-taunting-trump

James O’Keefe did something similar on ghost donors:

https://spectator.org/actblue-under-fire-james-okeefes-latest-investigation-reveals-suspicious-donations/

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

I'm guessing the NYT article "The Spy War" took the hot air out of the Senators, Turtle, and the Zhou meeting (gang of 4) from a day or two back with regards to their intent to fund Ukraine forever.

Expand full comment
SMH's avatar

AC: I expect that you’re spot on, still kinda wondering what prompted that article though. Read the comments about the “why” but most of them are like just one potato chip, not particularly satisfying. But then again, I’ve gotten a whole lot more cynical over the last few months.

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

Haven’t we all. Jeff Childers has a good Substack article on this. He asks the question why would the CIA give up their listening posts on the Russian border.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Feb 29, 2024
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

Not buying. Pulling the plug on Ukraine doesn't require those disclosures--that should be a last resort, not a first resort. Childers explanation is that the CIA anticipates Trump reelected. No way in the world is the Deep State conceding at this early date. Childers dismisses the idea of this being an attempt to force Congress to OK more money--an attractive analyst could persuade Johnson to disburse. Life at this juncture isn't that easy. Johnson doesn't want to end up like Speaker Kevin before him. That analyst needs to talk to Matt Gaetz.

I still prefer the "we're in way too far to back out this quickly" explanation. $60 billion for a soft landing, versus a hard landing. Ukraine unhappy? Too bad.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

I'm reading through Childers. He says some interesting things. But ...

He claims Russia and Ukraine are negotiating by each flying to KSA? Why? Isn't that terribly high profile for initial dickering? And Ukraine's "initial offer" was to hold Russia accountable for "war crimes"? Childers thinks Russia would even *respond* to nonsense like that? Terms of that sort are terms of surrender, not negotiation. So: Not plausible.

No doubt Ukraine knows they're on life support and that the US is trying to prolong the plug-pull at least beyond November. So they're angry, as Childers and Mercouris point out. But that doesn't change the Deep State priority, which is to keep Trump out. For that they need Ukraine not to collapse before November--for starters. So they really, really need that $60 billion, which is why the WH meeting yesterday with Chuckie and Turtle pressuring Johnson.

Expand full comment
Rachael Sotos's avatar

Perhaps Israel's claim to be Ukraine's ally will come back to bit it?

Expand full comment
lr's avatar

A ‘loan’ that of course will never be repaid…or will immediately be routed to designated pockets either on the Ukraine side upon receipt or the US side upon repayment. Sad to be Trump is backing a clear cover.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

Yes, I'd much prefer him to be more of a truth teller.

Expand full comment
lr's avatar

It’s not an excuse but it’s clear Trump, like so many others, is living with a gun to his head—both proverbial and literal. We’ll never regain power over our government until we starting finding, prosecuting and maximally punishing (execution would we great) the criminal mafia responsible for this.

Expand full comment
Ray Zacek's avatar

The Coming Lie: Republicans Betray Ukraine.

Expand full comment