Mariupol Maternity Hospital Attack Looks Like Fake

As I warned in a previous post, a false flag or a staged atrocity or even some kind of trap was bound to occur at around this point that would go against the Russians. I believe the alleged bombing of a hospital in Mariupol might be that event.

Why? Because Ukraine and their Western backers have the motive and the opportunity.

MOTIVE 1

The Russians seized documentary proof and testimony that the pathogens [anthrax. tularemia, cholera, and plague] stocked at the biolabs in Ukraine, particularly Kharkiv and Poltava, were ordered destroyed on an emergency basis on the eve of the invasion, Feb 24. Their presence would constitute a violation of Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Prohibition of bacteriological and toxin weapons.

MOTIVE 2

The  second motive is the discovery of plans for an Ukrainian invasion of the Donbas intended for mid March. Russia’s special operation, which already had a casus belli in Ukie firing across the border, now has further justification in the proof of an imminent full scale Ukie invasion.

The two stories pose a huge problem for the Western propaganda narrative, because the discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the plan for a Ukie invasion vindicate the Russian operation.

This propaganda problem explains Victoria Nuland’s quiet admission to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there were US biowar labs:

“uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.” Any hope to depict such “facilities” as benign or banal was immediately destroyed by the warning she quickly added: “we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainiahhhns [sic] on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach” —

Her immediate counter allegation signaled to me that a false flag or  complete hoax was in the offing, whose aim would be to distract from the two big stories of this week and  redirect the moral outrage of the public back toward Russia.

And so here we have it now: the alleged bombing of the children’s and  maternity hospital in Mariupol.

OPPORTUNITY

Besides motive, the Ukrainians also have the opportunity for a hoax of this kind because Mariupol is being squeezed by an encirclement of Russians and the neo Nazi forces among the Ukrainians are concentrated here.  From the start, the Ukrainians have been using people as human shields,  training citizens to throw Molotov cocktailsbeating and tear gassing foreign students,  and firing on civilians, as Russia has complained repeatedly.

Combat by civilians in crowded streets gives a perfect opportunity to blame any accident, self inflicted injury, or outright hoax on the opposing army.

On the other hand, the Russians have been unusually circumspect and even sustained losses to ensure fewer losses to the civilian population. They have zero motive to intentionally fire on civilians and give the West a propaganda bonanza.

The Ukrainians have the motive, the opportunity, and the profile.

Web research confirms the logistics of a hoax.

The Russians have shown documentary evidence that the maternity hospital there had already been converted into a military site.

Perhaps that is just a Russian claim?

But the Kremlin critical site Lenta.ru also reports that according to eye witnesses, Ukrainians nationalist soldiers had taken up positions inside the Mariupol hospital by the end of February.

Other articles indicate that many maternity wards had been relocated to the basement  [see also this] and to train shelters, where a strike would not have killed any women and children.

Finally, the blog WarOnFakes, started by a pro Russian group, has convincingly deconstructed some of the photos circulating of the alleged atrocity from a technical angle. They are images created by a beauty blogger and influencer.

The Times claims this is a conspiracy theory.

 

 

Trump Impeachment

Schmuel Klatzkin in The American Spectator:

There is no precedent for a former official being tried and barred from office after returning to private life. It was attempted once, with a secretary of war in Grant’s Cabinet. But since the man was acquitted in the Senate, no precedent was established. But even had a precedent been established, a Cabinet officer is not someone elected by the People.

And what is being proposed now is a trial to be held before the Senate of someone who will be a private citizen. It clearly won’t be for the purpose of removing him from office. More importantly, it will deprive the People of their right to elect a person of their choosing to public office.

Nowhere does the Constitution say or suggest that one can impeach and try someone who is not in office. Nowhere does it grant Congress the power to remove a person’s right to run for office except as part of the process of removal from office.

The Senate has no right to act as a judiciary body to try a private citizen, only to remove someone’s hands from power. And most certainly the Senate was never given the power by the People to tell them they may not elect this private citizen if they so choose.

To hold this trial would be to undo the protection the Framers had set in place in their careful recrafting of impeachment. It would usurp a power that was never delegated to Congress by the Constitution by trying a private citizen before the Legislature and, without benefit of judge or jury, to deprive him and the People of their rights. If a law has been broken, the only place to try a private citizen is in a court of law. The process of trial before the law was firmly and finally removed from the legislative branch by the Framers.

And lurking behind this all is the goal of denying the People the right to have the person of their choosing in office. It is hard to think of any act more undemocratic.