Ohio members of Congress i.e., Wenstrup, Turner & Jordan, are parroting Putin's disinformation campaign, why?
E LaMont Gregory MSc Oxon
“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” former National Security Council (NSC) official and Russia expert Dr Fiona Hill stated in her testimony.
“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”
The question we will investigate in this article is: why three Ohio members of the House of Representatives, Wenstrup (pictured above (left)), Turner and Jordan, are knowingly spreading a Russian conspiracy theory, which is gravely dangerous, effects negatively the security of the United States, and therefore, presents an act of malfeasance in office.
It should be noted that Wenstrup once took the oath and wore the uniform of the defenders of the American Republic, how far Wenstrup has fallen into the abyss of white protestant nationalism, above his duty to country.
co-conspirators or useful idiots
The three Ohio members of the House Intelligence Committee, Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan, have a serious ethics problem, which they will have to answer, and under penalty of perjury. And, on more than on one occasion and in more than one jurisdiction. First, before the House Ethics Committee, and then before investigators from the Southern District of New York. From there, their liability will extend as the investigation of Parnas and Giuliani extends into other state and federal jurisdictions.
The problem is that the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, as phone records document and witness testimony establishes, should have recused himself, because he is a material witness to the matters that are under investigation by the Intelligence Committee, on which he serves. Nunes could also prove to be much more involved, according to Lev Parnas's legal representatives, who have stated they have documentary evidence to support Nunes's involvement. Some of that evidentiary material has already been promised to the Intelligence Committee.
Charman Schiff passed the phone records to the ranking member, which gave Nunes sufficient time to confer with his own personal legal advisors, as well as, lawyers on the House Ethics Committee. Thus, Nunes knew that the phone records would be made public, eventually. Especially, after another member of the committee had a news article, which contained the phone records, entered into the official record of the committee's proceedings. At which time all minority members of the committee, had access to them, either from Schiff or Nunes directly or from the public record of them.
There are several possible explanations for the actions of the three Ohio representatives. It is reasonably possible that Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan knew of the association between Nunes, Parnas and Giuliani in relation to the subject matter before the committee, prior to the hearings and did not suggest to Nunes that he recuse himself from the proceedings, in which case they became co-conspirators.
And, their harsh questioning of several of the witnesses, in particular Marie Yovanovich, is then a cynical case of utter duplicity, highly unethical and potentially felonious, this is, indictable behavior.
Or, they only learned of the association during the hearings and did not call for the immediate adjournment of the hearings to sort the matter out in consultation with other members of the committee and the lawyers of the House Ethics Committee, which they did not do, which also renders them co-conspirators.
A third alternative is that they did not get the phone records from Schiff and Nunes, they did not see them in the news article, or on any of the broadcast or other print media sources, in which case they were merely acting as useful idiots.
For the sake of argument, let's say Nunes did not pass the phone records on to them. In that case they become witnesses to Nunes's malfeasance in office, because they had a right to know, and Nunes had an obligation to tell them of his conflict of interest. They still have to give their testimony under oath, both before the Ethics Committee and the SDNY investigators. Because this attests to the character and truthfulness of Devin Nunes, and his credibility and reliability as a witness, as Nunes by his actions is dragged deeper and deeper into the criminal conspiracy for which Parnas has already been indicted, and that has brought Giuliani under both state and federal criminal investigation.
The issue becomes not only one of what they, Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan knew and, when they knew it, but also what actions they took once they knew of Nunes's conflict of interest, if any.
It is inescapable that, in fact and in law, each of them jointly and severely have legal and ethical responsibilities to fulfil when confronted with conflicts of interest, which sadly, in this case, none of them lived up to.
If, we consider the worst case scenario, but given those involved, a rather likely outcome, that neither Wenstrup, Turner nor Jordan, has done anything that they are by the rules of the House obliged to do, even to this date, then under those circumstances their ethical as well as their criminal liability has become absolute, and their liability increases as the time they have known increases.
Remembering the manner in which Nunes and the three Ohio Congressmen, Wenstrup, Turner, Jordan questioned Marie Yovanovich, and Lt Col Vindman. At the same time, the way Fiona Hill gave Wenstrup a well deserved dressing down is now of cultural and historical significance.
Now, if you will, consider the fact that at least one of the minority members of the Intelligence Committee was materially involved in the smear campaign, along with Giuliani and Parnas that resulted in the removal of Yovanovich from her post. And, we cannot discount the possibility that one or more of the three Ohio members of that committee, Wenstrup, Turner and or Jordan knew of Nunes's involvement at the time of the questioning of Yovanovich. Nunes knew!
And, if they did not know it then, they certainly know it now, and it is not too late for them to do the right thing. For Jordan, whose truthfulness is already under question in an Ohio court, the stakes could not be higher.
Either way, Nunes must now recuse himself from any further involvement with the Intelligence Committee.
And, until we know what Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan knew and when they knew it, they must recuse themselves at least until they have consulted with Ethics Committee lawyers for advice.
It should be understood that there is no statute of limitations for these types of transgressions, none. And, there are no restrictions on who can bring these matters to the attention of authorities, inside or outside the confines of Congress.
In summary, it is reasonable to understand that Nunes, Wentrup, Turner and Jordan were either knowledgeable of or active participants in affairs related to matters before the House Intelligence Committee, specifically the smear campaign that resulted the removal of Ambassador Yovanovich from her post in the Ukraine. The smear campaign was part of a larger conspiracy to replace her with others willing to carry out a nefarious plot to involve the Ukraine Government in matters that would aid the re-election of the president of the United States.
And, it is noted that CNN had planned to have the president of the Ukraine announce on one of their news programs that his government was opening investigations into the former vice-president and his son, in an outlandish effort to boost the prospects of Trump's, morbidly outlandish chances of being, re-elected.
And further, Nunes, Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan, who were knowledgeable of or active participants
The is more to be said on this subject, watch this space.
Part of extensive phone records provided to all members of the Intelligence Committee during the hearings by committee chairman, Adam Schiff. Phone records reveal that Nunes was materially involved in the matters under investigation by the Intelligence Committee. The Ethics rules of the House of Representatives demand that Nunes should have recused himself from participation, which he did not do.
— not to be used in war --
Before delving into the primary purpose of this article, which is, to explain the reasons why three Ohio members of the US Congress would knowingly spread a 'fictional narrative', which suggests that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 US presidential election, but someone else did.
There is, however, another false narrative perpetuated by these same three GOP members of the US Congress from Ohio.
Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan each made statements purporting that one of the significant differences between military aid to the Ukraine from the Trump administration, in comparison to the aid supplied by the Obama administration, is that the former includes lethal weapons, while the latter did not.
We train American soldiers, supply them with lethal weapons and deploy them. We also supply them with 'rules of engagement' which specify when and against whom their lethal weapons can be used. Importantly, we do not allow our soldiers to use lethal force against civilian populations, non-combatants. In fact, American soldiers carry with them a copy of the internationally agreed limitations on the use of force as enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the use fire, conflagration, for example, as a tool of war, and prescribes how combatants who are captured are to be treated.
Likewise, when the government of the United States, We the People, give or sell lethal weapons to another country, there are rules attached which limit their use. Such things as attacking their own civilian population is prohibited, as well as, attacking another ally of the United States, or passing the weapons on to a third entity which might not abide by the restrictions place on the use of the lethal weapons. In short, there is always an agreement attached to the transfer of lethal weapons from the United States to another country.
We should also draw attention to the emerging evidence that what Trump wanted from the President of the Ukraine, Zelenskiy, was a very public announcement that the Ukrainians were conducting investigations into the Bidens and Ukrainian involvement in meddling in the 2016 US elections. Trump planned to campaign on the fact that the Ukrainians were investigating the Bidens, because the Bidens were corrupt, and to deflect attention from Russian meddling in the 2016 which was to his obvious benefit, onto an alternative source of that meddling and an alternative beneficiary, Clinton.
In short, Trump wanted the announcement of investigations and was not concerned whether any investigations ever took place.
Understanding this will help one understand that the Trump administration placed a limitation on the lethal weapons supplied to the Ukraine, which prohibits them from being used in war.
Trump can say, look at what I have done, I supplied Ukraine with lethal weapons, when the Obama administration would not, but there will be no mention of the fact that the Ukrainians cannot use them against the Russian-back militias that have occupied some seven (7) percent of the total landmass of the Ukraine, an area about the size of the state of Texas.
The question that Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan will be compelled to answer, is whether they knew of the 'not to be used in war' codicil (limitation) placed on the Ukrainians in relation to the delivery of the Javelin anti-tank missiles, when they bragged about supplying the Ukraine with lethal weapons during the impeachment public hearings.
There has been precious little news coverage of the Trump imposed 'not to be used in war' restriction on the supply of Javelins to the Ukraine, save a brief mention by the AM Joy presenter on MSNBC, and world service newscasts on one of the other cable news broadcasts, which include film of Ukrainian soldiers preparing emplacements for the Javelin, which they knew would not be deployed. The latter has been shown extensively on English language broadcasts outside the United States.
This author informed Chairman Adam Schiff of the limitation placed on the use of the Javelins, while the hearings were underway, directly.
Wenstrup, Turner and Jordan will be compelled to answer that question. Their integrity as well as their place in history depends upon it.
And for Wenstrup, who wore the uniform, and therefore accepted, under oath, the code of military honor, the consequences are dire and rather more urgent.
But Wenstrup's problems, ethical and legal potentially, do not end with his knowledge of the 'not be used in war' codicil attached to the Javelin missiles supplied to the Ukraine by the Trump administration, far from it. Not only did he know the Javelins could not be used to possibly destroy hundreds of millions in Russian state military assets, which was touted as a Trump triumph over aid supplied by the Obama administration, but there is emerging evidence that Wenstrup was much more deeply involved in the wider and insidious disinformation, and perhaps, even, vis-a-vis Nunes, the entire this-for-that plot.
There is mounting evidence that Wenstrup knew that the ranking member of the committee, Kevin Nunes, was meeting with Giuliani and now federally-indicted Lev Parnas to advance the Russian security services derived Ukraine narrative, to deflect crimes committed by Russia in our 2016 elections onto murky Ukrainians. And, to allow Trump to use bogus investigations against what Trump saw as his main rival in the 2020 presidential election, former Obama Vice-President Biden, to discredit him.
In fact, Wenstrup finds himself trapped in a crystal-clear fishbowl of a rather wide investigative net, to an extent that with the unearthing of the contacts made with Ukrainians by McEwen for Giuliani, any contacts with either of them or any associate of either of them by Wenstrup personally, or by, or between any of his associates, has become a matter of keen investigative interest.
As those favouring both impeachment and removal from office now represent the majority of Americans, Wenstrup might want to reflect on a conversation we had shortly after his first election, in which I suggested to him that he was about to ascend into a position that was once occupied by Thomas Jefferson, and as such, it was my hope that he would garner a sense of history, in relation to entering the federal legislature of the United States of America.
We are now in an era of historic significance, the impeachment and trial of an American president. And the role played by the central characters as well as those only involved peripherally, will be recorded and analysed in minute detail.
Wenstrup, must consider the peripheral role played by a doctor after the assassination of President Lincoln, so that the name Wenstrup does not become, Mudd. As will become obvious as facts continue to be revealed, Wenstrup is no stranger to dirty politics in campaigns, as evidenced by his campaign against former Ohio 2nd district congresswoman Jeannette Mary Schmidt, testifies to.
And, now to the primary purpose of this article. Consider the duplicity of Senator Burr and congressman Nunes, who both chaired committees in congress investigating Trump during the day, while under the cover of darkness scurried over to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to inform Trump of the inner workings of their respective committees.