We’ve seen this movie before. It ended with impeachment.

ed note–once again, if Trump posed no substantive threat to the JWO, none of this talk of impeachment would be taking place.

Recall as well that what put Clinton in the impeachment crosshairs–compliments of a nice Jewish girl with deep connections to Israel named Monica Lewinsky–was his brokering the Wye River Peace Deal Memorandum between Israel and the Palestinians, something that Judea, Inc viewed as anathema and worthy of death, politically (and literally) speaking. Trump making similar noises vis a vis his ‘ultimate’ peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians is the energy source of the attempts at impeaching him as well in the interests of bringing to office a replacement whose Christian Zionist sympathies would stop dead in its tracks any move towards creating any state in the Middle East other than one that is Jewish.

washingtonpost.com

We’ve seen this movie before.

It would seem but a matter of time before the president of the United States is asked a question under oath and gives a false answer. A lie, in other words. In the prequel, starring Bill Clinton, impeachment followed.

When the FBI, after a referral from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, raided the offices and hotel room of Trump attorney Michael Cohen, the thud of the other shoe dropping sent ripples along Pennsylvania Avenue, down the Mall and over the Potomac River into Northern Virginia, where more than a few veterans of earlier political wars probably grimaced at what could come next.

This isn’t to say the raid wasn’t necessary or proper — it was ordered not by Mueller but by the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. But it shows that we’ve reached a point that apparently made it necessary. The timing, given world affairs, couldn’t be worse.

As President Trump himself pointed out amid lamentations of a witch hunt, “We’re talking about a lot of serious things.” Indeed, we are, especially as concerns the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad reportedly executed a chemical attack on civilians, including children, near Damascus.

Trump is caught in a double bind with potentially disastrous consequences either way. To not take military action, as he has said he would, risks his being seen as weak or indecisive. Remember President Barack Obama’s flimsy red line. To engage Syria militarily risks everything else, further worsening relations with Russia, which vowed last month to retaliate against the United States should it attack Assad’s forces, within which Russian troops are embedded.

Closer to home, Trump risks the plausible perception, given history and his often impulsive decision-making process, that he would strike to create a distraction from the personal chaos surrounding him. Back to the prequel, you’ll recall Clinton’s 1998 missile strikes in Sudan, where a pharmaceutical factory was destroyed, as well as simultaneous strikes in Afghanistan. According to U.S. intelligence, the Sudan facility was part of Osama bin Laden’s empire and was believed to be a chemical weapons site, which turned out not to be so.

Thus was born the wag-the-dog theory that Clinton was creating a distraction from his tortures at the hands of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who was investigating the president’s alleged relations with Monica Lewinsky. According to the Clinton administration, there was only a small window of time when the missiles could be launched effectively, which just happened to be on the very same day of Lewinsky’s appearance before Starr’s grand jury. Wrote Christopher Hitchens at the time: “What was the rush? . . . Clinton needed to look ‘presidential’ for a day.”

Recall, too, that Starr’s original mandate was to investigate an allegedly questionable land deal in Arkansas known as “Whitewater.” But, well, one thing led to another, and you know the rest. Sexual relations did take place in the Oval Office, but Whitewater was a bust. And the 9/11 Commission concluded that the rationale for the bombings had been credible given information at the time. My, but history does seem to enjoy repeating itself.

As for the alleged Mueller “break-in” — Trump’s characterization — the perps were FBI investigators, not burglars, who came equipped with a warrant approved by a judge. Also, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein personally approved the raid, even though he wasn’t required to do so.

Of this much one can be fairly certain: The agents knew what they were after and were convinced that Cohen wouldn’t voluntarily hand it over. Whether Cohen’s $130,000 payment to the porn actress Stormy Daniels can be shown to have been an illegal “campaign donation” — or that he violated banking laws — remains to be seen. But he’s now in the grip of the Justice Department — and possibly Mueller — and soon it could behoove Cohen to become a witness in the special investigation.

It has been observed that most movies end with a repetition or variation of the opening scene. Increasingly, this plot seems to be foreshadowing a day when Trump, exposed and possibly impeached, is shown going back up the down escalator — alone, perhaps, but glad to be home.