Who’s Behind The Impeachment Effort?
One need not look too deeply to discover that the two groups behind the movement to impeach Donald Trump are tied to billionaire George Soros while the organization that just filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s presidency is financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
On Monday, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit claiming that Trump is in violation of a Constitutional clause banning government officials from accepting benefits from foreign nations.
CREW describes itself as an organization that utilizes “high-impact legal actions to target government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests.” CREW, which does not publicize its donor list, has received financing from Soros’s Open Society Foundations. According to Discover the Networks, CREW has also been funded by the Soros-financed Tides Foundation.
In August 2014, longtime Hillary Clinton ally David Brock, founder of the heavily Soros-financed Media Matters for America progressive group, was elected chairman of CREW’s board. Brock departed the organization last December, but Politico reported over the weekend that CREW is part of a network of groups for which the activist is attempting to raise $40 million to take on Trump.
Meanwhile, a campaign to impeach Trump officially kicked off as soon as the billionaire was sworn in last Friday. The movement’s centralized hub is the ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org website, which is led by two liberal advocacy groups, Free Speech for People and RootsAction.
A closer look at the two groups leading the impeachment campaign is instructive. Attorney and activist John Bonifaz is the co-founder and president of Free Speech for People. Bonifaz is the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), where he also served as general counsel and executive director. The NRVI’s website states that it is the recipient of “generous foundation and institutional support” from 24 past and present grantors, including Soros’s Open Society Institute.
The NRVI is also funded by the Soros-funded Tides Foundation and the Joyce Foundation, which has partnered with the Open Society Foundations on numerous projects. Former President Obama served as a paid board member of the Joyce Foundation for eight years from 1994 to 2002. Joyce has also been a prominent donor to the Soros-funded Media Matters For America progressive activist group.
Lance Lindblom, a director at the Free Speech for People group behind the impeachment campaign, previously served as Executive Vice President at Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute/Open Society Fund, his bio relates.
And Jeff Clements, Co-Founder and General Counsel for Free Speech for People, popped up in a leaked Open Society Foundations document as attending the Soros-funded group’s U.S. Programs Board Meeting and Retreat February 23-24, 2011. Bonifaz was also in attendance at the retreat, at which Soros himself provided opening remarks.
The other group behind the Trump impeachment campaign, RootsAction, is led by a small team that includes its co-founder, Norman Solomon. Solomon also founded the Institute for Public Accuracy, which, Discover The Networks reports, is funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
‘Fake News’ Perhaps Not To Blame, After All
The Poynter Institute, the group helping Facebook determine whether certain news stories are “disputed,” has determined it is worth considering the possibility that “fake news” stories did not significantly impact the 2016 presidential election after all.
Poynter’s Chief Media Writer James Warren reported on a study concluding that while “fake news” stories favoring Donald Trump far surpassed those in favor of Hillary Clinton, such stories didn’t significantly affect the outcome of the election. “Did fake news help elect Trump? Not likely, according to new research,” was the title of the Poynter article.
Poynter’s reportage on the matter is particularly significant since the journalism nonprofit has partnered with Facebook with the specific goal of combating “fake news.”
Obama Official Reflects On That Infamous ‘Red Line’
In an interview with Politico published last Wednesday, President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes admitted that the White House did not have the ability to back up the president’s infamous “red line” threat against Syria.
In August 2012, Obama warned his thinking would change on whether to use military force in Syria if Bashar Assad’s regime or other players on the ground started using chemical weapons. In a statement widely interpreted as a threat to utilize military force, Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Following the perceived threat, Assad’s forces and rebels acting in Syria were accused of using chemical agents on numerous occasions.
Besides international criticism, the Obama administration was panned domestically across the political spectrum for its indecisiveness on Syria and its failure to enforce the “red line” threat.
Politico conducted an extensive interview with Rhodes, which the news site published under the title of “What Worries Ben Rhodes About Trump.” In the interview, Rhodes conceded Obama’s hands were tied in regard to acting in Syria, stating that Obama “tested every possible option, and at no time was there a viable military option to make things better in Syria.”
“Does that imply that his mistake in the ‘red line’ episode was drawing the line in the first place?” asked Politico’s Michael Crowley.
Rhodes replied: “Well, drawing the line actually did provide the basis for a diplomatic effort to remove the chemical weapons program peacefully. I don’t know how we could have started a military conflict with Assad that we didn’t feel compelled to try to finish by taking out Assad. Even if you do that, there’s no reason to believe that people would have simply reconciled with one another because the United States was a party to the conflict. And never mind the fact that we had no international support. The only country in the world that was prepared to join us was France. And we had no domestic legal basis. We actually had Congress warning us against taking action without congressional authorization, which we interpreted as the president could face impeachment.”
Rhodes was asked to clarify whether the prospect of impeachment was actually a factor.
He answered: “That was a factor. Go back and read the letters from Boehner, letters from the Republican members of Congress. They laid down markers that this would not be constitutional. If we got drawn into a conflict in Syria without congressional authorization, without international authorization, without international support, you can see very clearly how that could have completely derailed this entire presidency.”
Rhodes statements about having no “domestic legal basis” and fearing the possibility of impeachment was a far cry from a claim made by lame-duck Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this month when he appeared to blame the British parliament’s vote against military action in Syria for Obama’s inability to act.