"... In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists". ..."
"... Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism. ..."
"... The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic. ..."
"... Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem). ..."
"... The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin. ..."
"... The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language. ..."
"... The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party. ..."
"... In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation? ..."
"... The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines. ..."
"... American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang. ..."
"... In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves. ..."
"... Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was. ..."
– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini's greatest film scripts.
In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked
vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially
a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in
many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the
purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists".
Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America's steady
descent into violence.
Historical Pretensions
Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley's proud "free speech" tradition
by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash
with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were
"good people on both sides". With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to
condemn the despised President for his "moral equivalence", thereby bestowing a moral blessing on
Antifa.
Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for
Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook , whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa
in both theory and practice. The book is "really taking off very fast", rejoiced the publisher, Melville
House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times
, The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of
all those by revolutionary anarchists.
The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for "insurgent activist movements" and
observed that: "The book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts
over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and
clobbering white supremacists."
Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a
generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both
the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism.
Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause
since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no
means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.
The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain
against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the
heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated
heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to
the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on
the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time
ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic.
The original Antifascist movement was an effort by the Communist International to cease hostilities
with Europe's Socialist Parties in order to build a common front against the triumphant movements
led by Mussolini and Hitler.
Since Fascism thrived, and Antifa was never a serious adversary, its apologists thrive on the
"nipped in the bud" claim: "if only" Antifascists had beat up the fascist movements early enough,
the latter would have been nipped in the bud. Since reason and debate failed to stop the rise of
fascism, they argue, we must use street violence – which, by the way, failed even more decisively.
This is totally ahistorical. Fascism exalted violence, and violence was its preferred testing
ground. Both Communists and Fascists were fighting in the streets and the atmosphere of violence
helped fascism thrive as a bulwark against Bolshevism, gaining the crucial support of leading capitalists
and militarists in their countries, which brought them to power.
Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism"
to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist
attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem).
The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin.
Storm Troopers of the Neoliberal War Party
Since Mark Bray offers European credentials for current U.S. Antifa, it is appropriate to observe
what Antifa amounts to in Europe today.
In Europe, the tendency takes two forms. Black Bloc activists regularly invade various leftist
demonstrations in order to smash windows and fight the police. These testosterone exhibits are of
minor political significance, other than provoking public calls to strengthen police forces. They
are widely suspected of being influenced by police infiltration.
As an example, last September 23, several dozen black-clad masked ruffians, tearing down posters
and throwing stones, attempted to storm the platform where the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon was
to address the mass meeting of La France Insoumise , today the leading leftist party in
France. Their unspoken message seemed to be that nobody is revolutionary enough for them. Occasionally,
they do actually spot a random skinhead to beat up. This establishes their credentials as "anti-fascist".
They use these credentials to arrogate to themselves the right to slander others in a sort of
informal self-appointed inquisition.
As prime example, in late 2010, a young woman named Ornella Guyet appeared in Paris seeking work
as a journalist in various leftist periodicals and blogs. She "tried to infiltrate everywhere", according
to the former director of Le Monde diplomatique , Maurice Lemoine, who "always intuitively
distrusted her "when he hired her as an intern.
Viktor Dedaj, who manages one of the main leftist sites in France, Le Grand Soir , was
among those who tried to help her, only to experience an unpleasant surprise a few months later.
Ornella had become a self-appointed inquisitor dedicated to denouncing "conspirationism, confusionism,
anti-Semitism and red-brown" on Internet. This took the form of personal attacks on individuals whom
she judged to be guilty of those sins. What is significant is that all her targets were opposed to
U.S. and NATO aggressive wars in the Middle East.
Indeed, the timing of her crusade coincided with the "regime change" wars that destroyed Libya
and tore apart Syria. The attacks singled out leading critics of those wars.
Viktor Dedaj was on her hit list. So was Michel Collon, close to the Belgian Workers Party, author,
activist and manager of the bilingual site Investig'action. So was François Ruffin, film-maker, editor
of the leftist journal Fakir elected recently to the National Assembly on the list of Mélenchon's
party La France Insoumise . And so on. The list is long.
The targeted personalities are diverse, but all have one thing in common: opposition to aggressive
wars. What's more, so far as I can tell, just about everyone opposed to those wars is on her list.
The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the
European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is
associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with
the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language.
In mid-June 2011, the anti-EU party Union Populaire Républicaine led by François Asselineau
was the object of slanderous insinuations on Antifa internet sites signed by "Marie-Anne Boutoleau"
(a pseudonym for Ornella Guyet). Fearing violence, owners cancelled scheduled UPR meeting places
in Lyon. UPR did a little investigation, discovering that Ornella Guyet was on the speakers list
at a March 2009 Seminar on International Media organized in Paris by the Center for the Study of
International Communications and the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
A surprising association for such a zealous crusader against "red-brown".
In case anyone has doubts, "red-brown" is a term used to smear anyone with generally leftist views
– that is, "red" – with the fascist color "brown". This smear can be based on having the same opinion
as someone on the right, speaking on the same platform with someone on the right, being published
alongside someone on the right, being seen at an anti-war demonstration also attended by someone
on the right, and so on. This is particularly useful for the War Party, since these days, many conservatives
are more opposed to war than leftists who have bought into the "humanitarian war" mantra.
The government doesn't need to repress anti-war gatherings. Antifa does the job.
The Franco-African comedien Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, stigmatized for anti-Semitism since 2002
for his TV sketch lampooning an Israeli settler as part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Good", is not
only a target, but serves as a guilty association for anyone who defends his right to free speech
– such as Belgian professor Jean Bricmont, virtually blacklisted in France for trying to get in a
word in favor of free speech during a TV talk show. Dieudonné has been banned from the media, sued
and fined countless times, even sentenced to jail in Belgium, but continues to enjoy a full house
of enthusiastic supporters at his one-man shows, where the main political message is opposition to
war.
Still, accusations of being soft on Dieudonné can have serious effects on individuals in more
precarious positions, since the mere hint of "anti-Semitism" can be a career killer in France. Invitations
are cancelled, publications refused, messages go unanswered.
In April 2016, Ornella Guyet dropped out of sight, amid strong suspicions about her own peculiar
associations.
The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful
thought police for the neoliberal war party.
I am not suggesting that all, or most, Antifa are agents of the establishment. But they can be
manipulated, infiltrated or impersonated precisely because they are self-anointed and usually more
or less disguised.
Silencing Necessary Debate
One who is certainly sincere is Mark Bray, author of The Intifa Handbook . It is clear
where Mark Bray is coming from when he writes (p.36-7): " Hitler's 'final solution' murdered six
million Jews in gas chambers, with firing squads, through hunger an lack of medical treatment in
squalid camps and ghettoes, with beatings, by working them to death, and through suicidal despair.
Approximately two out of every three Jews on the continent were killed, including some of my relatives."
This personal history explains why Mark Bray feels passionately about "fascism". This is perfectly
understandable in one who is haunted by fear that "it can happen again".
However, even the most justifiable emotional concerns do not necessarily contribute to wise counsel.
Violent reactions to fear may seem to be strong and effective when in reality they are morally weak
and practically ineffectual.
We are in a period of great political confusion. Labeling every manifestation of "political incorrectness"
as fascism impedes clarification of debate over issues that very much need to be defined and clarified.
The scarcity of fascists has been compensated by identifying criticism of immigration as fascism.
This identification, in connection with rejection of national borders, derives much of its emotional
force above all from the ancestral fear in the Jewish community of being excluded from the nations
in which they find themselves.
The issue of immigration has different aspects in different places. It is not the same in European
countries as in the United States. There is a basic distinction between immigrants and immigration.
Immigrants are people who deserve consideration. Immigration is a policy that needs to be evaluated.
It should be possible to discuss the policy without being accused of persecuting the people. After
all, trade union leaders have traditionally opposed mass immigration, not out of racism, but because
it can be a deliberate capitalist strategy to bring down wages.
In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise.
But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus
test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without
discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population
into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation?
A recent survey* shows that mass immigration is increasingly unpopular in all European countries.
The complexity of the issue is shown by the fact that in the vast majority of European countries,
most people believe they have a duty to welcome refugees, but disapprove of continued mass immigration.
The official argument that immigration is a good thing is accepted by only 40%, compared to 60% of
all Europeans who believe that "immigration is bad for our country". A left whose principal cause
is open borders will become increasingly unpopular.
Childish Violence
The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood
movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding
together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic
of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct
with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative
to joining the U.S. Marines.
American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang
warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be
fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang
is tougher than your gang.
That is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, which habitually declares of its chosen enemies: "All
they understand is force." Although Antifa claim to be radical revolutionaries, their mindset is
perfectly typical the atmosphere of violence which prevails in militarized America.
In another vein, Antifa follows the trend of current Identity Politics excesses that are squelching
free speech in what should be its citadel, academia. Words are considered so dangerous that "safe
spaces" must be established to protect people from them. This extreme vulnerability to injury from
words is strangely linked to tolerance of real physical violence.
Wild Goose Chase
In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American
left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly
to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals,
of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone
or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced
in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry,
not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent
attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump
instead of themselves.
Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy,
white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to
the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists
and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That
ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods,
has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was.
The facile use of the term "fascist" gets in the way of thoughtful identification and definition
of the real enemy of humanity today. In the contemporary chaos, the greatest and most dangerous upheavals
in the world all stem from the same source, which is hard to name, but which we might give the provisional
simplified label of Globalized Imperialism. This amounts to a multifaceted project to reshape the
world to satisfy the demands of financial capitalism, the military industrial complex, United States
ideological vanity and the megalomania of leaders of lesser "Western" powers, notably Israel. It
could be called simply "imperialism", except that it is much vaster and more destructive than the
historic imperialism of previous centuries. It is also much more disguised. And since it bears no
clear label such as "fascism", it is difficult to denounce in simple terms.
The fixation on preventing a form of tyranny that arose over 80 years ago, under very different
circumstances, obstructs recognition of the monstrous tyranny of today. Fighting the previous war
leads to defeat.
Donald Trump is an outsider who will not be let inside. The election of Donald Trump is above
all a grave symptom of the decadence of the American political system, totally ruled by money, lobbies,
the military-industrial complex and corporate media. Their lies are undermining the very basis of
democracy. Antifa has gone on the offensive against the one weapon still in the hands of the people:
the right to free speech and assembly.
Notes.
* "Oů va la démocratie?", une enquęte de la Fondation pour l'innovation politique sous la direction
de Dominique Reynié, (Plon, Paris, 2017).
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
The article is two years old now. Looks like Paul Craig Roberts was right. A very strange thing is that Trump proved to be
very good for weapon industry and not so bad for neocons. Still the coup is continuing.
Notable quotes:
"... There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump. ..."
"... The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress. ..."
"... The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue. ..."
"... The institutional Trump enemies are: ..."
"... The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
"... The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit. ..."
"... The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes. ..."
"... The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed European peoples will support the coup against Trump. ..."
"... PCR has gone senile. Trump IS the elite ..."
"... And Trump will continue the MidEast wars. He made it clear. ..."
"... The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11 ..."
"... 1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress ..."
"... 2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator ..."
"... 3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law. ..."
The below theses are thus far only a general outlay...
There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The
case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency
to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business,
which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling
U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get
the Deputy position.) Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures.
The institutional Trump enemies are:
The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts
of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan
and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President
Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists'
benefit.
The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary
power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The article is a documented and accurate description of a coup that is underway. The extraordinary lies that are being perpetrated
by the media and by members of the US government have as their obvious purpose the prevention of a Donald Trump presidency. There
is no other reason for the extraordinary blatant lies for which there is not a shred of evidence. Indeed, there is massive real evidence
to the contrary. Yet the coup proceeds and gathers steam.
President Eisenhower warned us more than a half century ago of the danger that the military/security complex presents to US democracy.
In the decades since Eisenhower's warning, the military/security complex has become more powerful than the American people and is
demonstrating its power by overturning a presidential election.
Will the coup succeed?
In my opinion, former and present members of the US government and the media would not dare to so obviously and openly participate
in a coup against democracy and an elected president unless they expect the coup to succeed.
It is an easy matter for the ruling interests to bribe electors to vote differently than their states. The cost of the bribes
is miniscule compared to the wealth and income streams that a trillion dollar annual budget provides to the military/security complex.
The fake news of a Putin/Trump election-stealing plot generated by unsupported allegations of present and former members of US intelligence,
the lame-duck President Obama, and the presstitute media provide the cover for electors to break with precedent "in order to save
America from a Russian stooge."
The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed
European peoples will support the coup against Trump.
The only ones speaking against the coup are the voters who elected Trump-all of whom are alleged to have been deceived by Russian
fake news -- the Russian government, and the 200 websites falsely described by the Washington Post and the secret organization PropOrNot
as Russian agents.
In other words, those objecting to the coup are the ones described by the coup leaders as those who made the coup necessary.
I do not know that the coup will succeed, but looking at the commitment so many high level people have made to the coup, I conclude
that those bringing the coup expect it to succeed.
Therefore, we should take very seriously the expectation of success that those who control levers of power are demonstrating.?
As usual, Paul Craig Roberts is dead-on correct. Just wish Mr. T. would hook him up in some way in the new admin as an economic
adivosor of some sorts. He could make a yuuuuuuuge difference.
Above and beyond what is going on behind the scenes they are pushing for all out civil war. If the electors vote for Trump then
it's on to Jan.20 where multiple sources are calling out for an outright riot. Michael Moore is calling for a not a protest but
a revolution. In response, Trump supporters are now being encouraged to be 2nd amendment patriots to defend against a left wing
radical takeover. No matter what happens you can sure you won't hear the truth on the MSM. In fact TPTB are making sure right
now they shut down the "alt- right" lest any more muppets awaken.
"A whole group of trolls has been assigned to denigrate PCR's warning, which underlines its importance."
Count me in as one of those trolls, because I find PCR to be a sensationalist. In less than two weeks, limp-dick Obama won't
have another word to say about the "Russian hack", aka bullshit, and nothing Hillbilery has to say about anything will make any
more noise than a goose flying backwards and farting in a thunderstorm.
The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the
Military Industrial Complex.
The Imperial City (D.C.) of Isengard and Mordor (Wall Street) want fresh bodies and blood to enrich themselves. No more pointless
wars! No more body bags for blood money!
When the hell will the U.S. Military cut off the head of the beast and restore the Republic?
We can hope Trump can hack his way there, but if not, step up soldiers!
This may be the last chance, tipping point is here.
I have believed PCR is controlled opposition for a while now. I also believe the electors will, like the American People, deliver
Trump to the Oval Office. I also believe this whole mess is mainly aimed at undermining Trump's mandate from the People so repugs
in CONgress can give him a hard time. That won't work either because they'll be inundated with demands from their constituencies.
Screw 'em.
I agree with the premise of this article, but disagree that the deep state expects to succeed in a coup via the Electors. Using
the tired metaphor, the deep state plays chess. They are merely laying the groundwork for something later.
Paul Craig Roberts...the Armed Forces are with Trump. The CIA are a bunch of effete college girly-boys that should be outed
and either be arrested or die for crimes against the state.
FUCK THE CIA and their contractors. Whores for sale to the highest bidder. Enemies of the Republic. Death to them all!
If the Defense-Industrial Complex does overturn the election, their victory will be their pyrrhic last stand and it will be the
end of its dominance. The American people will totally destroy it.
what the United States and NATO are doing on Russia's western frontier is similar to what the German Wehrmacht did in preparation
for Operation Barbarossa.
...but we lost because every POTUS since JFK is a show pony or he goes to the glue factory (and he knows it). The establishment
won again so we wait in the shadows for the aging angry beast to die...
So, all indications are that he will receive > 270 electoral votes on 12/19, so the next day of action for this cabal is Jan.
6th when they can again attempt to overturn?
So we will have a lot of propaganda thrown at us yet again trying to influence that, but a) how many people actually pay attention
to this crap expecially over the holiday season, and b) how many people pay attention to the MSM anymore anyhow.
That is a large part of their angst - nobody seems to be listening to their bullshit.
I think that's when the House actual gives there nihil obstat and impramatur to the electoral college votes, and so members can
attempt to hang the process up there as per this below which was in the original article.
Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan.
6 in Congress
2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member
& 1 Senator
3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out
in federal law.
...
Once Trump gets in office the resultant corruption probe afterwards should be epic! We'll know by Monday if the electoral college
stays the course or steers the country towards anarchy.
Seems to me the CIA and the POTUS has made a complete mess of the world. Do the people really have a desire for them to solve
the problem when they caused the problem??? I think not!
I have CIA contacts.
They are freaked. .. It is even affecting some of them in the physical health department. (Not enough of them. IMHO.)
Now is NOT the time to fold to intimidation or threats. Now is the time to double down and make them back up threats and/or
expose themselves and show exactly which side they are on.
They DO NOT have enough manpower or assets in the states (or anywhere) to silence everyone.
If the Satanic Witch or other Ass Wipes Inc puppet other than Donald Trump (I'm not 100% sure about him but he is the best
shot we have, IMO.) gets put into office, shaking off these assholes will be much harder or impossible all together.
And BTW, in case you think you can just close your eyes and tuck back in a hole until the battle is over they have plans well
under way to kill you and your family anyway. .. I'm sure if you have read any of my previous posts you know what some of those
ways are.
That's my field report and firm recommendations for 12/17/16.
Live Hard, The CIA / CeyeA Are Not The Good Guys Here, Not Even Close, Die Free
I notice Trump has more than a few ex military people around him. A few generals. I wonder if the would call to active military
to stand down? Or to counter a coup?
My first thoughts after Trump selected the Generals was to organize a Military-lead counter coup. He has also aligned a massive
amount of wealth by his other appointments. I pray & hope I am correct.
The Republican electors their families and the GOP have way too much to lose. Republicans will never get elected again...and all
their lives would be in danger. Plus you would get domestic terror groups spring up across the country. Remember Trump won most
of the counties so his support is strong and getting stronger.
The soros and clintons of the world will not be able to control the backlash as they think..and you really would then see russia
and china stiring up big trouble in america.
Donald Trump, doesn't strike me as the type of person, that would lay down for such criminality... and if he puts up a fight,
like I think he will, anyone that supports him will fight with him. You can count me in that fighting group!
"... Almost by accident, I had launched my academic career by doing something a bit different. Embedded within that study of drug trafficking was an analytical approach that would take me, almost unwittingly, on a lifelong exploration of U.S. global hegemony in its many manifestations, including diplomatic alliances, CIA interventions, developing military technology, recourse to torture, and global surveillance. Step by step, topic by topic, decade after decade, I would slowly accumulate sufficient understanding of the parts to try to assemble the whole. In writing my new book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , I drew on this research to assess the overall character of U.S. global power and the forces that might contribute to its perpetuation or decline. ..."
"... In the process, I slowly came to see a striking continuity and coherence in Washington's century-long rise to global dominion. CIA torture techniques emerged at the start of the Cold War in the 1950s; much of its futuristic robotic aerospace technology had its first trial in the Vietnam War of the 1960s; and, above all, Washington's reliance on surveillance first appeared in the colonial Philippines around 1900 and soon became an essential though essentially illegal tool for the FBI's repression of domestic dissent that continued through the 1970s. ..."
"... After occupying the Philippines in 1898, the U.S. Army, facing a difficult pacification campaign in a restive land, discovered the power of systematic surveillance to crush the resistance of the country's political elite. Then, during World War I, the Army's "father of military intelligence," the dour General Ralph Van Deman, who had learned his trade in the Philippines, drew upon his years pacifying those islands to mobilize a legion of 1,700 soldiers and 350,000 citizen-vigilantes for an intense surveillance program against suspected enemy spies among German-Americans, including my own grandfather. In studying Military Intelligence files at the National Archives, I found "suspicious" letters purloined from my grandfather's army locker. In fact, his mother had been writing him in her native German about such subversive subjects as knitting him socks for guard duty. ..."
"... In the 1950s, Hoover's FBI agents tapped thousands of phones without warrants and kept suspected subversives under close surveillance, including my mother's cousin Gerard Piel, an anti-nuclear activist and the publisher of Scientific American magazine. During the Vietnam War, the bureau expanded its activities with an amazing array of spiteful, often illegal, intrigues in a bid to cripple the antiwar movement with pervasive surveillance of the sort seen in my own FBI file. ..."
"... What about using the historical method to explore the nature of USA's reducing EU nations to "vassals" – and keeping them in the status of vassals, such that they can be depended on to undermine their own economies and sovereignty for the sake of USA's global initiatives? ..."
"... An interesting question might be whether the NATO-to-Afghanistan highway (truck route for munitions, etc.), c. 2010, was also, on the back-haul – Afghanistan to EU – the major supply route for heroin throughout the EU and thus the key to corruption of EU governments (and of Russia) and domination of those governments by USA's neocon operatives? (E.g., was/is the distribution system of the "Chocolate King" Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine, delivering something besides just chocolate?) ..."
"... The Puppet Masters Behind Georgia President Saakashvili http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20569.htm ..."
In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington pursued its elusive enemies across the landscapes of Asia and Africa, thanks
in part to a massive expansion of its intelligence infrastructure, particularly of the emerging technologies for digital surveillance,
agile drones, and biometric identification. In 2010, almost a decade into this secret war with its voracious appetite for information,
the Washington Post reported that the
national security state had swelled into a "fourth branch" of the federal government -- with 854,000 vetted officials, 263 security
organizations, and over 3,000 intelligence units, issuing 50,000 special reports every year.
Though stunning, these statistics only skimmed the visible surface of what had become history's largest and most lethal clandestine
apparatus. According to classified documents that Edward Snowden
leaked in 2013, the nation's 16 intelligence agencies alone had 107,035 employees and a combined "black budget" of $52.6 billion,
the
equivalent of 10% percent of the vast defense budget.
By sweeping the skies and probing the worldwide web's undersea cables, the National Security Agency (NSA) could surgically penetrate
the confidential communications of just about
any leader on the
planet, while simultaneously sweeping up
billions of
ordinary messages. For its classified missions, the CIA had access to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, with
69,000 elite troops (Rangers, SEALs, Air Commandos)
and their agile arsenal. In addition to this formidable paramilitary capacity, the CIA
operated 30 Predator and Reaper drones
responsible for more
than 3,000 deaths in Pakistan and Yemen.
While Americans practiced a collective form of duck and cover as the Department of Homeland Security's
colored alerts pulsed nervously from yellow to red,
few paused to ask the hard question: Was all this security really directed solely at enemies beyond our borders? After half a century
of domestic security abuses -- from the "red scare" of the 1920s through the FBI's illegal harassment of antiwar protesters in the
1960s and 1970s -- could we really be confident that there wasn't a hidden cost to all these secret measures right here at home?
Maybe, just maybe, all this security wasn't really so benign when it came to us.
From my own personal experience over the past half-century, and my family's history over three generations, I've found out in
the most personal way possible that there's a real cost to entrusting our civil liberties to the discretion of secret agencies. Let
me share just a few of my own "war" stories to explain how I've been forced to keep learning and relearning this uncomfortable lesson
the hard way.
On the Heroin Trail
After finishing college in the late 1960s, I decided to pursue a Ph.D. in Japanese history and was pleasantly surprised when Yale
Graduate School admitted me with a full fellowship. But the Ivy League in those days was no ivory tower. During my first year at
Yale, the Justice Department indicted Black Panther leader Bobby Seale for a local murder and the May Day protests that filled the
New Haven green also shut the campus for a week. Almost simultaneously, President Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia and student
protests closed hundreds of campuses across America for the rest of the semester.
In the midst of all this tumult, the focus of my studies shifted from Japan to Southeast Asia, and from the past to the war in
Vietnam. Yes, that war. So what did I do about the draft? During my first semester at Yale, on December 1, 1969, to be precise, the
Selective Service cut up the calendar for a lottery. The first 100 birthdays picked were certain to be drafted, but any dates above
200 were likely exempt. My birthday, June 8th, was the very last date drawn, not number 365 but 366 (don't forget leap year) -- the
only lottery I have ever won, except for a Sunbeam electric frying pan in a high school raffle. Through a convoluted moral calculus
typical of the 1960s, I decided that my draft exemption, although acquired by sheer luck, demanded that I devote myself, above all
else, to thinking about, writing about, and working to end the Vietnam War.
During those campus protests over Cambodia in the spring of 1970, our small group of graduate students in Southeast Asian history
at Yale realized that the U.S. strategic predicament in Indochina would soon require an invasion of Laos to cut the flow of enemy
supplies into South Vietnam. So, while protests over Cambodia swept campuses nationwide, we were huddled inside the library, preparing
for the next invasion by editing a book of essays on Laos for the publisher Harper & Row. A few months after that book appeared,
one of the company's junior editors, Elizabeth Jakab, intrigued by an account we had included about that country's opium crop, telephoned
from New York to ask if I could research and write a "quickie" paperback about the history behind the heroin epidemic then infecting
the U.S. Army in Vietnam.
I promptly started the research at my student carrel in the Gothic tower that is Yale's Sterling Library, tracking old colonial
reports about the Southeast Asian opium trade that ended suddenly in the 1950s, just as the story got interesting. So, quite tentatively
at first, I stepped outside the library to do a few interviews and soon found myself following an investigative trail that circled
the globe. First, I traveled across America for meetings with retired CIA operatives. Then I crossed the Pacific to Hong Kong to
study drug syndicates, courtesy of that colony's police drug squad. Next, I went south to Saigon, then the capital of South Vietnam,
to investigate the heroin traffic that was targeting the GIs, and on into the mountains of Laos to observe CIA alliances with opium
warlords and the hill-tribe militias that grew the opium poppy. Finally, I flew from Singapore to Paris for interviews with retired
French intelligence officers about their opium trafficking during the first Indochina War of the 1950s.
The drug traffic that supplied heroin for the U.S. troops fighting in South Vietnam was not, I discovered, exclusively the work
of criminals. Once the opium left tribal poppy fields in Laos, the traffic required official complicity at every level. The helicopters
of Air America, the airline the CIA then ran, carried raw opium out of the villages of its hill-tribe allies. The commander of the
Royal Lao Army, a close American collaborator, operated the world's largest heroin lab and was so oblivious to the implications of
the traffic that he opened his opium ledgers for my inspection. Several of Saigon's top generals were complicit in the drug's distribution
to U.S. soldiers. By 1971, this web of collusion ensured that heroin, according to a later
White House survey of a thousand veterans, would be "commonly used" by 34% of American troops in South Vietnam.
None of this had been covered in my college history seminars. I had no models for researching an uncharted netherworld of crime
and covert operations. After stepping off the plane in Saigon, body slammed by the tropical heat, I found myself in a sprawling foreign
city of four million, lost in a swarm of snarling motorcycles and a maze of nameless streets, without contacts or a clue about how
to probe these secrets. Every day on the heroin trail confronted me with new challenges -- where to look, what to look for, and,
above all, how to ask hard questions.
Reading all that history had, however, taught me something I didn't know I knew. Instead of confronting my sources with questions
about sensitive current events, I started with the French colonial past when the opium trade was still legal, gradually uncovering
the underlying, unchanging logistics of drug production. As I followed this historical trail into the present, when the traffic became
illegal and dangerously controversial, I began to use pieces from this past to assemble the present puzzle, until the names of contemporary
dealers fell into place. In short, I had crafted a historical method that would prove, over the next 40 years of my career, surprisingly
useful in analyzing a diverse array of foreign policy controversies -- CIA alliances with drug lords, the agency's propagation of
psychological torture, and our spreading state surveillance.
The CIA Makes Its Entrance in My Life
Those months on the road, meeting gangsters and warlords in isolated places, offered only one bit of real danger. While hiking
in the mountains of Laos, interviewing Hmong farmers about their opium shipments on CIA helicopters, I was descending a steep slope
when a burst of bullets ripped the ground at my feet. I had walked into an ambush by agency mercenaries.
While the five Hmong militia escorts whom the local village headman had prudently provided laid down a covering fire, my Australian
photographer John Everingham and I flattened ourselves
in the elephant grass and crawled through the mud to safety. Without those armed escorts, my research would have been at an end and
so would I. After that ambush failed, a CIA paramilitary officer summoned me to a mountaintop meeting where he threatened to murder
my Lao interpreter unless I ended my research. After winning assurances from the U.S. embassy that my interpreter would not be harmed,
I decided to ignore that warning and keep going.
Six months and 30,000 miles later, I returned to New Haven. My investigation of CIA alliances with drug lords had taught me more
than I could have imagined about the covert aspects of U.S. global power. Settling into my attic apartment for an academic year of
writing, I was confident that I knew more than enough for a book on this unconventional topic. But my education, it turned out, was
just beginning.
Within weeks, a massive, middle-aged guy in a suit interrupted my scholarly isolation. He appeared at my front door and identified
himself as
Tom Tripodi , senior agent for the Bureau of Narcotics, which later became the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). His agency,
he confessed during a second visit, was worried about my writing and he had been sent to investigate. He needed something to tell
his superiors. Tom was a guy you could trust. So I showed him a few draft pages of my book. He disappeared into the living room for
a while and came back saying, "Pretty good stuff. You got your ducks in a row." But there were some things, he added, that weren't
quite right, some things he could help me fix.
Best of all, there was the one about how the Bureau of Narcotics caught French intelligence protecting the Corsican syndicates
smuggling heroin into New York City. Some of his stories, usually unacknowledged, would appear in my book,
The Politics of Heroin in Southeast
Asia . These conversations with an undercover operative, who had trained Cuban exiles for the CIA in Florida and later investigated
Mafia heroin syndicates for the DEA in Sicily, were akin to an advanced seminar, a master class in covert operations.
In the summer of 1972, with the book at press, I went to Washington to testify before Congress. As I was making the rounds of
congressional offices on Capitol Hill, my editor rang unexpectedly and summoned me to New York for a meeting with the president and
vice president of Harper & Row, my book's publisher. Ushered into a plush suite of offices overlooking the spires of St. Patrick's
Cathedral, I listened to those executives tell me that Cord Meyer, Jr., the CIA's deputy director for covert operations, had called
on their company's president emeritus, Cass Canfield, Sr. The visit was no accident, for Canfield, according to an
authoritative history , "enjoyed prolific links to the world of intelligence, both as a former psychological warfare officer
and as a close personal friend of Allen Dulles," the ex-head of the CIA Meyer denounced my book as a threat to national security.
He asked Canfield, also an old friend, to quietly suppress it.
I was in serious trouble. Not only was Meyer a senior CIA official but he also had impeccable social connections and covert assets
in every corner of American intellectual life. After graduating from Yale in 1942, he served with the marines in the Pacific, writing
eloquent war dispatches published in the Atlantic Monthly . He later worked with the U.S. delegation drafting the U.N. charter.
Personally recruited by spymaster Allen Dulles, Meyer joined the CIA in 1951 and was soon running its International Organizations
Division, which, in the words of that
same history , "constituted the greatest single concentration of covert political and propaganda activities of the by now octopus-like
CIA," including " Operation Mockingbird " that
planted disinformation in major U.S. newspapers meant to aid agency operations. Informed sources told me that the CIA still had assets
inside every major New York publisher and it already had every page of my manuscript.
As the child of a wealthy New York family, Cord Meyer moved in elite social circles, meeting and marrying Mary Pinchot, the niece
of Gifford Pinchot, founder of the U.S. Forestry Service and a former governor of Pennsylvania. Pinchot was a breathtaking beauty
who later became President Kennedy's mistress, making dozens of
secret visits to the White House. When she was found
shot dead
along the banks of a canal in Washington in 1964, the head of CIA counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, another Yale alumnus,
broke into her home in an unsuccessful attempt to secure her diary. Mary's sister Toni and her husband, Washington Post editor
Ben Bradlee, later found the diary and gave it to Angleton for destruction by the agency. To this day, her unsolved murder remains
a subject of mystery and
controversy.
Cord Meyer was also in the Social Register of New York's fine families along with my publisher, Cass Canfield, which added
a dash of social cachet to the pressure to suppress my book. By the time he walked into Harper & Row's office in that summer of 1972,
two decades of CIA service had
changed Meyer (according to that same authoritative history) from a liberal idealist into "a relentless, implacable advocate
for his own ideas," driven by "a paranoiac distrust of everyone who didn't agree with him" and a manner that was "histrionic and
even bellicose." An unpublished 26-year-old graduate student versus the master of CIA media manipulation. It was hardly a fair fight.
I began to fear my book would never appear.
To his credit, Canfield refused Meyer's request to suppress the book. But he did allow the agency a chance to review the manuscript
prior to publication. Instead of waiting quietly for the CIA's critique, I contacted Seymour Hersh, then an investigative reporter
for the New York Times . The same day the CIA courier arrived from Langley to collect my manuscript, Hersh swept through Harper
& Row's offices like a tropical storm, pelting hapless executives with incessant, unsettling questions. The next day, his exposé
of the CIA's attempt at censorship appeared on the paper's
front page . Other national media organizations followed his lead. Faced with a barrage of negative coverage, the CIA gave Harper
& Row a critique full of unconvincing
denials . The book was published unaltered.
My Life as an Open Book for the Agency
I had learned another important lesson: the Constitution's protection of press freedom could check even the world's most powerful
espionage agency. Cord Meyer reportedly learned the same lesson. According to his
obituary in the Washington Post , "It was assumed that Mr. Meyer would eventually advance" to head CIA covert operations,
"but the public disclosure about the book deal apparently dampened his prospects." He was instead exiled to London and eased into
early retirement.
Meyer and his colleagues were not, however, used to losing. Defeated in the public arena, the CIA retreated to the shadows and
retaliated by tugging at every thread in the threadbare life of a graduate student. Over the next few months, federal officials from
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare turned up at Yale to investigate my graduate fellowship. The Internal Revenue Service
audited my poverty-level income. The FBI tapped my New Haven telephone (something I learned years later from a class-action lawsuit).
In August 1972, at the height of the controversy over the book, FBI agents told the bureau's director that they had "conducted
[an] investigation concerning McCoy," searching the files they had compiled on me for the past two years and interviewing numerous
"sources whose identities are concealed [who] have furnished reliable information in the past" -- thereby producing an 11-page report
detailing my birth, education, and campus antiwar activities.
A college classmate I hadn't seen in four years, who served in military intelligence, magically appeared at my side in the book
section of the Yale Co-op, seemingly eager to resume our relationship. The same week that a
laudatory review of my book appeared on the front page of the New York Times Book Review , an extraordinary achievement
for any historian, Yale's History Department placed me on academic probation. Unless I could somehow do a year's worth of overdue
work in a single semester, I faced dismissal.
In those days, the ties between the CIA and Yale were wide and deep. The campus residential colleges screened students, including
future CIA Director Porter Goss, for possible careers in espionage. Alumni like Cord Meyer and James Angleton held senior slots at
the agency. Had I not had a faculty adviser visiting from Germany, the distinguished scholar
Bernhard Dahm who was a stranger to this covert nexus,
that probation would likely have become expulsion, ending my academic career and destroying my credibility.
During those difficult days, New York Congressman Ogden Reid, a ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, telephoned
to say that he was sending staff investigators to Laos to look into the opium situation. Amid this controversy, a CIA helicopter
landed near the village where I had escaped that ambush and flew the Hmong headman who had helped my research to an agency airstrip.
There, a CIA interrogator made it clear that he had better deny what he had said to me about the opium. Fearing, as he later told
my photographer, that "they will send a helicopter to arrest me, or soldiers to shoot me," the Hmong headman did just that.
At a personal level, I was discovering just how deep the country's intelligence agencies could reach, even in a democracy, leaving
no part of my life untouched: my publisher, my university, my sources, my taxes, my phone, and even my friends.
Although I had won the first battle of this war with a media blitz, the CIA was winning the longer bureaucratic struggle. By silencing
my sources and denying any culpability, its officials convinced Congress that it was innocent of any direct complicity in the Indochina
drug trade. During Senate hearings into CIA assassinations by the famed
Church Committee three years later,
Congress accepted the agency's assurance that none of its operatives had been directly involved in heroin trafficking (an allegation
I had never actually made). The committee's report did confirm the core of my critique, however, finding that "the CIA is particularly
vulnerable to criticism" over indigenous assets in Laos "of considerable importance to the Agency," including "people who either
were known to be, or were suspected of being, involved in narcotics trafficking." But the senators did not press the CIA for any
resolution or reform of what its own inspector general had called the "particular dilemma" posed by those alliances with drug lords
-- the key aspect, in my view, of its complicity in the traffic.
During the mid-1970s, as the flow of drugs into the United States slowed and the number of addicts declined, the heroin problem
receded into the inner cities and the media moved on to new sensations. Unfortunately, Congress had forfeited an opportunity to check
the CIA and correct its way of waging covert wars. In less than 10 years, the problem of the CIA's tactical alliances with drug traffickers
to support its far-flung covert wars was back with a vengeance.
During the 1980s, as the crack-cocaine epidemic swept America's cities, the agency, as its own Inspector General later
reported , allied itself with the largest drug
smuggler in the Caribbean, using his port facilities to ship arms to the Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua and protecting him
from any prosecution for five years. Simultaneously on the other side of the planet in Afghanistan, mujahedeen guerrillas imposed
an opium
tax on farmers to fund their fight against the Soviet occupation and, with the
CIA's tacit consent , operated heroin labs along the Pakistani border to supply international markets. By the mid-1980s, Afghanistan's
opium harvest had grown 10-fold and was providing 60% of the heroin for America's addicts and as much as
90% in New York City.
Almost by accident, I had launched my academic career by doing something a bit different. Embedded within that study of drug
trafficking was an analytical approach that would take me, almost unwittingly, on a lifelong exploration of U.S. global hegemony
in its many manifestations, including diplomatic alliances, CIA interventions, developing military technology, recourse to torture,
and global surveillance. Step by step, topic by topic, decade after decade, I would slowly accumulate sufficient understanding of
the parts to try to assemble the whole. In writing my new book,
In the Shadows of the American Century:
The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , I drew on this research to assess the overall character of U.S. global power
and the forces that might contribute to its perpetuation or decline.
In the process, I slowly came to see a striking continuity and coherence in Washington's century-long rise to global dominion.
CIA torture techniques emerged at the start of the Cold War in the 1950s; much of its futuristic robotic aerospace technology had
its first trial in the Vietnam War of the 1960s; and, above all, Washington's reliance on surveillance first appeared in the colonial
Philippines around 1900 and soon became an essential though essentially illegal tool for the FBI's repression of domestic dissent
that continued through the 1970s.
Surveillance Today
In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, I dusted off that historical method, and used it to explore the origins and character
of domestic surveillance inside the United States.
After occupying the Philippines in 1898, the U.S. Army, facing a difficult pacification campaign in a restive land, discovered
the power of systematic surveillance to crush the resistance of the country's political elite. Then, during World War I, the Army's
"father of military intelligence," the dour General Ralph Van Deman, who had learned his trade in the Philippines, drew upon his
years pacifying those islands to mobilize a legion of 1,700 soldiers and 350,000 citizen-vigilantes for an intense surveillance program
against suspected enemy spies among German-Americans, including my own grandfather. In studying Military Intelligence files at the
National Archives, I found "suspicious" letters purloined from my grandfather's army locker. In fact, his mother had been writing
him in her native German about such subversive subjects as knitting him socks for guard duty.
In the 1950s, Hoover's FBI agents tapped thousands of phones without warrants and kept suspected subversives under close surveillance,
including my mother's cousin Gerard Piel, an anti-nuclear activist and the publisher of Scientific American magazine. During the
Vietnam War, the bureau expanded
its activities with an amazing array of spiteful, often illegal, intrigues in a bid to cripple the antiwar movement with pervasive
surveillance of the sort seen in my own FBI file.
Memory of the FBI's illegal surveillance programs was largely washed away after the Vietnam War thanks to Congressional reforms
that required judicial warrants for all government wiretaps. The terror attacks of September 2001, however, gave the National Security
Agency the leeway to launch renewed surveillance on a previously unimaginable scale. Writing for TomDispatch in 2009, I
observed that coercive methods first tested in the Middle East
were being repatriated and might lay the groundwork for "a domestic surveillance state." Sophisticated biometric and cyber techniques
forged in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq had made a "digital surveillance state a reality" and so were fundamentally changing
the character of American democracy.
Four years later, Edward Snowden's leak of secret NSA documents revealed that, after a century-long gestation period, a U.S. digital
surveillance state had finally arrived. In the age of the Internet, the NSA could monitor tens of millions of private lives worldwide,
including American ones, via a few hundred computerized probes into the global grid of fiber-optic cables.
And then, as if to remind me in the most personal way possible of our new reality, four years ago, I found myself the target yet
again of an IRS audit, of TSA body searches at national airports, and -- as I discovered when the line went dead -- a tap on my office
telephone at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Why? Maybe it was my current writing on sensitive topics like CIA torture and NSA
surveillance, or maybe my name popped up from some old database of suspected subversives left over from the 1970s. Whatever the explanation,
it was a reasonable reminder that, if my own family's experience across three generations is in any way representative, state surveillance
has been an integral part of American political life far longer than we might imagine.
At the cost of personal privacy, Washington's worldwide web of surveillance has now become a weapon of exceptional power in a
bid to extend U.S. global hegemony deeper into the twenty-first century. Yet it's worth remembering that sooner or later what we
do overseas always seems to come home to haunt us, just as the CIA and crew have haunted me this last half-century. When we learn
to love Big Brother, the world becomes a more, not less, dangerous place.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch regular
, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of the now-classic book The
Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations
over 50 years, and the forthcoming In
the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books, September) from which this piece
is adapted. (Republished from
TomDispatch by permission
of author or representative)
"In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, I dusted off that historical method, and used it to explore the origins and character
of domestic surveillance inside the United States." -- Alfred McCoy
What about using the historical method to explore the nature of USA's reducing EU nations to "vassals" – and keeping them
in the status of vassals, such that they can be depended on to undermine their own economies and sovereignty for the sake of USA's
global initiatives?
An interesting question might be whether the NATO-to-Afghanistan highway (truck route for munitions, etc.), c. 2010, was
also, on the back-haul – Afghanistan to EU – the major supply route for heroin throughout the EU and thus the key to corruption
of EU governments (and of Russia) and domination of those governments by USA's neocon operatives? (E.g., was/is the distribution
system of the "Chocolate King" Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine, delivering something besides just chocolate?)
"Just over one third of all cargo goes on routes dubbed the "northern distribution network" through Central Asia, and the Caucasus
or Russia. " -- Reuters, 2011
Just a thought, speculative, based in part on the assumption that such trucks would not be subject to narcotics search-and-seizure
going across borders.
"... The debate over whether Snowden was a traitor is fatuous. As a result of Snowden's revelations, we learned that the National Security Agency logged domestic phone calls and emails for years, recorded the metadata of correspondence between Americans, and, in some cases, exploited the content of emails. The case against Private Manning was similarly fatuous. Manning provided evidence of the US cover-up of torture by our Iraqi allies; a US Army helicopter opening fire on a group of civilians, including two Reuters journalists; and the use of an air strike to cover up the execution of civilians. Some of these acts were war crimes. ..."
"... According to US law, the term "whistleblower" applies to anyone who "reasonably believes" he or she is disclosing a violation of law or gross mismanagement, gross waste, or abuse of authority. My testimony documented for the first time the intentional distortion of intelligence by CIA director William Casey and Deputy Director Gates in order to serve the agenda of Ronald Reagan and his administration. ..."
"... Being a contrarian was easy and natural for me. In fact, no one should think about entering the intelligence profession without good contrarian instincts. Such instincts would include an innate skepticism, the doubting of conventional wisdom and a willingness to challenge authority, which translates to an ability to tell truth to power. These contrarian instincts are essential to the success of any intelligence organization. As Rogers and Hammerstein would have it, it was "doing what comes naturally!" ..."
"... My book The Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA was the first insider account from an intelligence analyst regarding the skewed and politicized assessments of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence -- the Agency's analytic arm. I also exposed the strategic failure of covert actions that were never intended to be a part of President Harry Truman's CIA ..."
"... The political pliancy of these directors fully compromised the intelligence mission of the CIA, and it was political pliancy that made directors such as Gates and Tenet so attractive to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. ..."
"... In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, Truman wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post to document the wrongs of the CIA He concluded that his efforts to "create the quiet intelligence arm of the Presidency" had been subverted by a "sinister" and "mysterious" agency that was conducting far too many clandestine activities in peacetime. I lectured at the Truman Library in the summer of 2014, and found a note in Truman's hand that stated the CIA was not designed to "initiate policy or to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized." ..."
"... In The Failure of Intelligence , I documented the CIA's resistance to reform and the corruption in both the analytical and operational directorates. I made a case for starting over at the CIA, not dissimilar from the case made by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan 25 years ago as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Not every agency or department of government can be reformed, and it is possible that the intricate web of habits, procedures, and culture places the CIA in the non-reformable category. Once the political culture of an institution such as the CIA has been broken, it is extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to rebuild or repair it. ..."
In this excerpt, , former CIA intelligence analyst Melvin A. Goodman ponders the meanings of the words whistleblower, dissident
and contrarian, how they apply to himself and others, and whether the CIA can ever be repaired or rebuilt.
Whistleblowers. Dissidents. Contrarians.
The terms are used synonymously by pundits and the public, and I've been all three at one time or another in order to expose improprieties
and illegalities in the secret government, and to inform the American public of policies that compromise the freedom and security
of US citizens and weaken US standing in the global community.
I have never liked the terms contrarian or dissident. I've always believed that my criticism should be conventional wisdom. The
term whistleblower is more complex because it often raises questions of patriotism or sedition. Chelsea Manning received commutation
from her 35-year prison sentence for revealing so-called secrets that documented the terror and violence of the baseless US war in
Iraq. Members of the Bush administration who launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are considered honorable members of our society,
although their acts involved the corruption of intelligence; caused the death of thousands of US soldiers and foreign civilians;
terrorized civilian populations; perpetrated the criminal use of torture and abuse; sanctioned use of secret prisons and extraordinary
rendition; and caused the destabilization of the region that has set the stage for strategic advances by Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Edward Snowden, if he had remained in the United States, would have faced an even longer prison sentence because he revealed the
massive NSA surveillance program that was illegal and immoral, and that violated the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal
seizures and searches. Manning and Snowden admit to breaking US laws, but their actions were never as serious as the law-breaking,
including massive violations of privacy, that they exposed.
The debate over whether Snowden was a traitor is fatuous. As a result of Snowden's revelations, we learned that the National Security
Agency logged domestic phone calls and emails for years, recorded the metadata of correspondence between Americans, and, in some
cases, exploited the content of emails. The case against Private Manning was similarly fatuous. Manning provided evidence of the
US cover-up of torture by our Iraqi allies; a US Army helicopter opening fire on a group of civilians, including two Reuters journalists;
and the use of an air strike to cover up the execution of civilians. Some of these acts were war crimes.
There is no more compelling evidence of the unconscionable behavior of US personnel in Iraq than the callous dialogue between
the crew members of the helicopter regarding the civilian deaths and particularly the firing on those Iraqis who came to recover
the dead bodies of Iraqi civilians. Manning's documents exposed this behavior, but her efforts were ridiculed by former secretary
of defense Robert Gates, who described it as examining war by "looking through a straw."
To make matters worse, American journalists have criticized their colleagues (Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and Glenn Greenwald
[then of The Guardian]) who brought the Snowden-Manning revelations to the attention of the public. David Gregory, then host of the
venerable "Meet the Press" on NBC, asked Greenwald "to the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden ... why shouldn't you ...
be charged with a crime?"
Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer who labors for CNN and The New Yorker, called Snowden a "grandiose narcissist
who belongs in prison" and referred to Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, who was detained by British authorities for nine hours
under anti-terror laws, the equivalent of a "drug mule."
The king of calumny is Michael Grunwald, a senior correspondent for Time, who wrote on Twitter that he couldn't "wait to write
a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange." The New York Times also targeted Assange, although the paper cooperated
with WikiLeaks in 2010 in publishing reams of information from Private Manning's revelations. Of course, if Time or the New York
Times had broken these stories, they would have built new shelves to hold their Pulitzer Prizes.
Their hypocrisy was exposed by David
Carr of the New York Times, who expressed shock at finding Assange and Greenwald "under attack, not just from a government bent on
keeping its secrets, but from friendly fire by fellow journalists."
I didn't reveal abuses as great as those revealed by Manning and Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg, but I do claim status as a whistleblower
because of my revelations before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during confirmation hearings for Bob Gates, who was
nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 to be director of central intelligence.
According to US law, the term "whistleblower"
applies to anyone who "reasonably believes" he or she is disclosing a violation of law or gross mismanagement, gross waste, or abuse
of authority. My testimony documented for the first time the intentional distortion of intelligence by CIA director William Casey
and Deputy Director Gates in order to serve the agenda of Ronald Reagan and his administration.
Bob Gates was an old friend, but the friendship ended when he routinely distorted intelligence throughout the 1980s as deputy
director for intelligence and deputy director of the CIA In destroying the political culture of the CIA, he created a toxic and corrupt
environment at the Agency, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA detention and torture reminds us that the Agency
hasn't recovered.
Being a contrarian was easy and natural for me. In fact, no one should think about entering the intelligence profession without
good contrarian instincts. Such instincts would include an innate skepticism, the doubting of conventional wisdom and a willingness
to challenge authority, which translates to an ability to tell truth to power. These contrarian instincts are essential to the success
of any intelligence organization. As Rogers and Hammerstein would have it, it was "doing what comes naturally!"
My book The Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA was the first insider account from an intelligence
analyst regarding the skewed and politicized assessments of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence -- the Agency's analytic arm. I
also exposed the strategic failure of covert actions that were never intended to be a part of President Harry Truman's CIA
I wrote
the book for many reasons, including the need to describe the inability of journalists to take into account, let alone understand,
the dangers of politicization and the actions of CIA directors such as Casey, Gates, and more recently Goss and Tenet. The political
pliancy of these directors fully compromised the intelligence mission of the CIA, and it was political pliancy that made directors
such as Gates and Tenet so attractive to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
For the past quarter century, my testimony and writings have exposed the failure to honor President Truman's purpose in creating
a CIA to provide policymakers with accurate, unbiased accounts of international developments, and have highlighted the CIA's readiness
to cater to the White House. This view is not original with me; in fact, it was President Truman who first acknowledged that the
CIA he created in 1947 had gotten off the tracks under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in the 1950s and early
1960s.
In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, Truman wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post
to document the wrongs of the CIA He concluded that his efforts to "create the quiet intelligence arm of the Presidency" had been
subverted by a "sinister" and "mysterious" agency that was conducting far too many clandestine activities in peacetime. I lectured
at the Truman Library in the summer of 2014, and found a note in Truman's hand that stated the CIA was not designed to "initiate
policy or to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized."
In The Failure of Intelligence , I documented the CIA's resistance to reform and the corruption in both the analytical
and operational directorates. I made a case for starting over at the CIA, not dissimilar from the case made by Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan 25 years ago as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Not every agency or department of government can
be reformed, and it is possible that the intricate web of habits, procedures, and culture places the CIA in the non-reformable category.
Once the political culture of an institution such as the CIA has been broken, it is extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to
rebuild or repair it.
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say
about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice
tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests
weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were
on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute
pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.
The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's
decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law"
and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging
"norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was
100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law
for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they
were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone
really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history
of the FBI.
For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or "
rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve
an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress,
and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates
discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional
system put there by the holy Founders.
In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington
about finally creating a
legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying
to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you
want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives,
articles with headlines like
"Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :
The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions
on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers,
undercover agents and covert criminal activity.
The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and
procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I.
to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins
and other abuses.
followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year
later, "Don't Forget the
FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost
reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis
wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."
The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of
its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists.
It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds
like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was
probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at
least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought,
and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social
Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful
capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks
and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,
"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public
domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."
According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it
was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind.
The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally
sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and
the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens
of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists
stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.
TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that
Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were
running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation
and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their
report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's
Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.
Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton
Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good
at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective
agencies.
In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and
budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing
it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying
on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American
ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great
blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central
secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."
So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all
on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ
from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress
took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created
a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified
until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive
branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs
licking their balls. Happy New Year!"
The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation,
changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal
domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting
what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or
destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.
The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary
of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention
facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands
on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919,
but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge
to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After
that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the
cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely
nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI
persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.
So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and
his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to
investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended
himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!):
"We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing
the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."
Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing
attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed
it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic
mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street
bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was
so successful he'd ordered up more.
The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf
Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession
about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable
new life in New York.
By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing
it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI
spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William
Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and
Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed
for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as
"the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow."
Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as
many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress
a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."
Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly
an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging
Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every
corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter
and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic
recognition for the next decade.
Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs.
When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators'
home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake,
and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced
to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.
"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in
sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."
With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's
control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected
and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America
from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American
homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected
homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals
from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according
to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers
were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother
until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his
"friend" Clyde Tolson .
In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that
he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai
Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included
libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by
the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.
In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin
Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish
way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really
a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try
to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession
of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become
a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with
other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note
urging King to commit suicide.
FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes
After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing
FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby
about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the
Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked
selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,
"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these
people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody,
you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."
Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally
opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing
so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really
make us a laughingstock around the world."
Imagine that.
Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey
"Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to
fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the
move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing
old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially
after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his
Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year
on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.
Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:
Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as
strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.
Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?
Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested
in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.
Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number
3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of
Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan
showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries
of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists.
The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage
of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's
possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use
them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.
Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the
next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to
fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met
him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon
and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved;
the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of
the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.
The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to
keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's
crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold
back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason.
Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades
that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What
does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an
open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire.
Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?
Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton.
Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.
Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred
by his employer.
My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away
with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class
called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters
of Deceit.
In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback
copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.
So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns
for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.
I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when
I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.
We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when
it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"
Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't
his place.
It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since
they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible
in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over
Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.
Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and
"reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept
reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the
FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end
of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.
Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence
of critical editing who knows what that may be?
Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark
Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.
So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded
IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!
Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when
the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up
a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and
statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are
struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking
day
Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially
the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup
de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.
One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning
gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history,
back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding
fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through
a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of
the Empire and our fellow creatures
PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class
parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet
where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside
of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0
The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements
of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism
was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and
its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white
"reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor
to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment.
Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have
a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.
Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any
treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably
Operation CHAOS (early
60s to early 70s) by the CIA and
COINTELPRO(late 1950s to
early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms
were initiated.
Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for
the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the
most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal
gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays
this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast
a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel
targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues
(such as street murders in Mexico).
The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within
corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate
Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed
Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving
the FBI in 2005.
Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large
corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate
executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't
investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.
When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible
record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain
or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the
1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and
1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance
under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.
Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record
on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins,
is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if
still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI.
All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters
are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration
itself.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the
Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The
Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most
of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men
in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number
of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this
role.
Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to
investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations,
particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have
been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian
business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the
1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at
either.
Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality,
nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so
on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are
dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about
the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.
The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director
Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation
into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams
Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured,
was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again,
I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton,
-- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."
"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington,
was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly
understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah
up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was
supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the
matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)
In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding
scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running
into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite
having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after
our precious bodily fluids!
I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership.
Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not
allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind
Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with
AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes
that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. ..."
"... The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment, as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player. ..."
"... Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time. The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence of NATO, for instance. ..."
"... Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown. Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline. ..."
"... Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues, will consolidate its economic domination. ..."
"... A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its different dimensions ..."
"... Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous combination. ..."
Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite
that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite
inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. Alternative social forces, like
the ones behind Trump's presidential triumph, only have a limited impact on domestic and ultimately
on foreign policy. A conceptual detour and a brief on history and on Trump's domestic setting when
he was elected will help clarifying these theses.
Beyond the different costumes that it wears (dealing with ideology, international law, and even
religion), foreign policy follows domestic policy. The domestic policy actors are the social forces
at work at a given point of time, mainly the economic agents and their ambitions (in their multiple
expressions), including the ruling power elite. Society's aspirations not only relate to material
welfare, but also to ideological priorities that population segments may have at a given point of
time.
From America's initial days until the mid 1800s, there seems to have been a broad alignment of
US foreign policy with the wishes of its power elite and other social forces. America's expansionism,
a fundamental bulwark of its foreign policy from early days, reflected the need to fulfill its growing
population's ambitions for land and, later on, the need to find foreign markets for its excess production,
initially agricultural and later on manufacturing. It can be said that American foreign policy was
broadly populist at that time. The power elite was more or less aligned in achieving these expansionist
goals and was able to provide convenient ideological justification through the writings of Jefferson
and Madison, among others.
As the country expanded, diverging interests became stronger and ultimately differing social forces
caused a significant fracture in society. The American Civil War was the climax of the conflicted
interests between agricultural and manufacturing led societies. Fifty years later, a revealing manifestation
of this divergence (which survived the Civil War), as it relates to foreign policy, is found during
the early days of the Russian Revolution when, beyond the ideological revulsion of Bolshevism, the
US was paralyzed between the agricultural and farming businesses seeking exports to Russia and the
domestic extractive industries interested in stopping exports of natural resources from this country.
The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the
ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's
aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic
forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment,
as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War
II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player.
Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War
II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces
shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time.
The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence
of NATO, for instance.
Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable
to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown.
Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in
the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the
bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened
and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict
across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline.
Trump won his presidency because he was able to get support from the country's growing frustrated
white population. His main social themes (bringing jobs to America by stopping the decline of its
manufacturing industry, preventing further US consumer dependence on foreign imports and halting
immigration) fitted well with the electors' anger. Traditional populist themes linked to foreign
policy (like Russophobia) did not play a big role in the last election. But whether or not the Trump
administration can align with the ruling power elite in a manner that addresses the key social and
economic needs of the American people is still to be seen.
Back to foreign policy, we need to distinguish between Trump's style of government and his administration's
actions. At least until now, focusing excessively on Trump's style has dangerously distracted from
his true intentions. One example is the confusion about his initial stance on NATO which was simplistically
seen as highly critical to the very existence of this organization. On NATO, all that Trump really
cared was to achieve a "fair" sharing of expenditures with other members and to press them to
honor
their funding commitments.
From immigration to defense spending, there is nothing irrational about Trump's foreign policy
initiatives, as they just reflect a different reading on the American people's aspirations and, consequently,
they attempt to rely on supporting points within the power elite which are different from the ones
used in the past.
Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge
it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues,
will consolidate its economic domination. A far-reaching lesson, although still being ignored, is
that China's economic might is showing that capitalism as understood in the West is not winning,
much less in its American format. It also shows that democracy may not be that relevant, as it is
not necessarily a corollary or a condition for economic development. Perhaps it even shows the superiority
of China's economic model, but this is a different matter.
As Trump becomes more aware about his limitations, he has naturally reversed to the basic imprints
of America's traditional foreign policy, particularly concerning defense. His emphasis on a further
increase in defense spending is not done for prestigious or national security reasons, but as an
attempt to preserve a job generating infrastructure without considering the catastrophic consequences
that it may cause.
On Iran, Obama's initiative to seek normalization was an attempt to walk a fine line (and to find
a less conflictive path) between supporting the US traditional Middle East allies (mainly the odd
combination of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and recognizing Iran's growing aspirations. Deep
down, Obama was trying to acknowledge Iran's historical viability as a country and a society that
will not disappear from the map, while Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, may not be around in a few
years. Trump's Iran policy until now only represents a different weighing of priorities, although
it is having far reaching consequences on America's credibility as a reliable contractual party in
international affairs.
In the case of Afghanistan, Trump's decision to increase boots on the ground does not break the
inertia of US past administrations. Aside from temporary containment, an increasing military presence
or a change in tactics will not alter fundamentally this reality.
Concerning Russia, and regardless of what Trump has said, actions speak more than words. A continuous
deterioration of relations seems inevitable.
Trump will also learn, if he has not done so already, about the growth of multipolar forces in
world's events. Russia has mastered this reality for several years and is quite skillful at using
it as a basic tool of its own foreign goals. Our multipolar world will expand, and Trump may even
inadvertently exacerbate it through its actions (for instance in connection with the different stands
taken by the US and its European allies concerning Iran).
While fulfilling the aspirations of the American people seems more difficult within the existing
capitalist framework, there are also growing apprehensions coming from America's power elite as it
becomes more frustrated due to its incapacity of being more effective at the world level. America's
relative adolescence in world's history will become more and more apparent in the coming years.
A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its
different dimensions. The US has never suffered the consequences of an international conflict in
its own backyard. The American Civil War, despite all the suffering that it caused, was primarily
a domestic event with no foreign intervention (contrary to the wishes of the Confederation). The
deep social and psychological damage caused by war is not part of America's consciousness as it is,
for instance in Germany, Russia or Japan. America is insensitive to the lessons of history because
it has a very short history itself.
Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there
is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined
with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous
combination.
Oscar Silva-Valladares is a former investment banker that has lived and worked in North and
Latin America, Western & Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines and Western Africa.
He currently chairs Davos International Advisory, an advisory firm focused on strategic consulting
across emerging markets.
Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
So the coup against the President was exposed already in Jan 2017 and Trump did not take any measures to prevent the appointment
of the Special Prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick. ..."
"... However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets. ..."
"... In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide. ..."
"... Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years. ..."
"... Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people. ..."
"... Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart. ..."
"... The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet) ..."
"... At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". ..."
"... I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. ..."
"... Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? ..."
Exclusive: President-elect Trump is fending off a U.S. intelligence leak of unproven allegations
that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes, but the darker story might be the CIA's intervention in
U.S. politics, reports Robert Parry.
The decision by the U.S. intelligence community to include in an official report some unverified
and salacious accusations against President-elect Donald Trump resembles a tactic out of FBI Director
J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press.
Legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
In this case, as leaders of the U.S. intelligence community were pressing Trump to accept their
assessment that the Russian government had tried to bolster Trump's campaign by stealing and leaking
actual emails harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump was confronted with this classified "appendix"
describing claims about him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room.
Supposedly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan included
the unproven allegations in the report under the rationale that the Russian government might have
videotaped Trump's misbehavior and thus could use it to blackmail him. But the U.S. intelligence
community also had reasons to want to threaten Trump who has been critical of its performance and
who has expressed doubts about its analysis of the Russian "hacking."
After the briefing last Friday, Trump and his incoming administration did shift their position,
accepting the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails of
the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta. But I'm told Trump saw
no evidence that Russia then leaked the material to WikiLeaks and has avoided making that concession.
Still, Trump's change in tone was noted by the mainstream media and was treated as an admission
that he was abandoning his earlier skepticism. In other words, he was finally getting onboard the
intelligence community's Russia-did-it bandwagon. Now, however, we know that Trump simultaneously
had been confronted with the possibility that the unproven stories about him engaging in unorthodox
sex acts with prostitutes could be released, embarrassing him barely a week before his inauguration.
The classified report, with the explosive appendix, was also given to President Obama and the
so-called "Gang of Eight," bipartisan senior members of Congress responsible for oversight of the
intelligence community, which increased chances that the Trump accusations would be leaked to the
press, which indeed did happen.
Circulating Rumors
The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with
prostitutes have been
circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate
who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further
damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the
earmarks of a campaign dirty trick.
However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted
into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then
to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets.
Trump has denounced the story as "fake news" and it is certainly true that the juicy details –
reportedly assembled by a former British MI-6 spy named Christopher Steele – have yet to check out.
But the placement of the rumors in a U.S. government document gave the mainstream media an excuse
to publicize the material.
It's also allowed the media to again trot out the Russian word "kompromat" as if the Russians
invented the game of assembling derogatory information about someone and then using it to discredit
or blackmail the person.
In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency
to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI
had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what
the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget
or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide.
However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump. It could
just be rumors concocted in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, first among Republicans battling
Trump for the nomination (this opposition research was reportedly initiated by backers of Sen. Marco
Rubio in the GOP race) before being picked up by Clinton supporters for use in the general election.
Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered
a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed
out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence
source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit
both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the
next four years.
Hurting Both Candidates
Though I was skeptical of that information, it did turn out that FBI Director James Comey, one
of the top officials in the intelligence community, badly damaged Clinton's campaign by deeming her
handling of her emails as Secretary of State "extremely careless" but deciding not to prosecute her
– and then in the last week of the campaign briefly reopening and then re-closing the investigation.
Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President
Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to
reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street
bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people.
The intelligence community's assessment set the stage for what could have been a revolt by the
Electoral College in which enough Trump delegates could have refused to vote for him to send the
election into the House of Representatives, where the states would choose the President from one
of the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College. The third-place finisher turned out to be
former Secretary of State Colin Powell who got four votes from Clinton delegates in Washington State.
But the Electoral College ploy failed when Trump's delegates proved overwhelmingly faithful to the
GOP candidate.
Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the
inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major
media.
Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump or whether the intelligence community genuinely
thought that the accusations might be true and deserved inclusion in a report on alleged Russian
interference in U.S. politics or whether it was some combination of the two, we are witnessing a
historic moment when the U.S. intelligence community has deployed its extraordinary powers within
the domain of U.S. politics. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Excuse the mixed metaphors, but this looks like another entirely predictable nail in the coffin
of US democracy, as the chickens come home to roost. For some time it has been quite obvious the
CIA has been pulling strings from behind the scenes to make whatever puppet occupies the White
House dance to its tune. But it won't end there. Only when the CIA climbs completely out of the
coffin can the epic finale between the CIA, FBI and NSA begin.
The big question is as to how long the people of states like Texas and Florida stand by in
the wings as the theater catches fire.
There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been
struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political
elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.
Jean-David , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am
Don't mix your metaphors before they are hatched. ;-)
Reply
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm
There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has
been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a
political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.
The United States has been accused of decadence for decades by Americans and non-Americans
without much concern being shown by anyone not in a certain minority. The great tragedy of a decadent
way of life is its durability.
In 1961 William Lederer's book, "A Nation of Sheep" revealed the abuse of American power and
the ignorance of the American people regarding this misrule. Nothing much has changed since then
except the names of the aggressors and their primary geographic areas of intended domination.
The mass of people are essentially clueless and content to believe whatever lies and salacious
tales are told them from the nation's Towers of Babel. This is in line with human history that
shows people of authoritarian dispositions tend to be more aggressive and dominant in politics
and commerce and the masses accept their lot as long as they get enough crumbs from establishment's
plate..
(The title of the book was also an insult to sheep, but that is another story.)
The saying goes, "power corrupts," but i believe that it is the corrupt who seek power to begin
with.
Most people are content to live and let live, to live by the golden rule, mind their own and reciprocate
kindness etc., etc.
Then there are those who get a thrill from exercising control over others. Those are the ones
who shoot straight to the top.
Jack Flanigan , January 14, 2017 at 1:47 am
An interesting and clear observation. As an australian I note our system is dominated by two
major parties (and I mean dominated) similar to the US. The two parties are vehicles for ambitious
and corrupt individuals to fast track political careers. The power rests in these organizations
and attracts the corrupt like bees to honey.
Reply
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Bill, regarding your sense of human history I might add that for many centuries people couldn't
read, except for the aristocracy and the religious sects mostly. The reformation produced a 100
year war and literacy was at an all time low in Luthers time but something motivated them to fight
for such a long time, and it wasn't information nor intellect.
Where has our literacy gone which would prevent a repeat of endless war and violence these
days? Oh yes, corporate controlled media hiring people who are certain to have no critical thinking
skills, no moral rudder, nor worldly experience to shed the scales from their eyes. We are almost
in pre-Gutenberg times of short attention spans and 140 character 'news truths' covering the landscape
of the ignorant. One can only hope the Tower of the oligarchs Babel has rapidly decaying clay
feet. We certainly know how to reduce cultures more ancient than ours to ashes without so much
as a second thought regarding the sanctity of life. Where are all the pro-lifers now? Oh yeh,
that's only in the womb, and after the umbilical cord is cut they are fair game for destruction.
The US values we rave about will really hurt when other cultures treat us as they have been treated.
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Or better yet, we are in Gutenberg times where the "type" is set by the big players and the
papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at
the national level to inhibit discourse, excluding this site of course.
Reply
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Or better yet, we are in times of the early press machines, where the "type" is set by the
big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their
only function now at the national level, meant to inhibit discourse and ideas. (excluding this
site of course)
Reply
Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm
In its Hoover relation, this article reprises the passage in The Craft of Intelligence, by
Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet).
It describes the power struggle involved post-FDR, during-HST 1946-48, at the institution of
the CIA (The Agency was not legislatively enacted, only instituted through Executive Order.)
Hoover opposed the creation of an intelligence collection that would compete with the FBI's monopoly
of spies snoops and snitches.
The compromise settlement set the FBI with domestic coverage and the CIA with international
haunts for its spooks.
Come the the present day, they still have turf wars in power rivalry for budget money.
However, in effect, after the budget shuffle the two legions merge their 'assets' - making each
one double its real size. They join in advocating for (the oxymoronic) 'authoritarian morality,'
gaining both the unlawfulness funded in the Judiciary with same unlawfulness, (or, being 'outlaw,'
'above the law'), funded by the Executive.
You can depend that they employ the same techniques. Coercion, extortion, blackmail, assassination,
torture, defamation, slander and Press Release aspersion. The polity is hung pendant on those
strings the outlaws pull. Or, 'hanged' pendant.
As Hoover, so Clapper et al.
Trump seems to have reconsided, maybe recanted, his defiance of 'intelligence' after he has
seen some truth in it regarding things he knows he did in places he knows he was. He knows he
dare not let the public see him through the cyclopian 'eye' of the intelligentia illumination.
_____
My wit sez, Lo! That explains his undocumented wife - he heard about Russian mail-order brides
and flew off to visit the showroom. And brought back some capital equipment, manufactured in foreign
lands.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm
The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's
text seems unavailable on the internet)
Try alibris or abebooks dot coms. They have copies.
Good comment Bryan, but I wonder if we should pay attention at all to this decline of everything,
not only of democracy. Yet, I wish to highlight two humorous comments which best characterise
the situation.
The first one was a title I saw on Russia-Insider website: "Trump watch out! John Brennan throws
even a kitchen sink at Trump in desperation."
The other was a comment by a zero-hedge reader: "Trump could have had sex with a goat in a
Moscow hotel room and be videod as much as I care if he only delivers on his election promises.
I voted based on his policy promises, not on his sexual preferences."
The sexual smear is so 20th century, the same as the CIA – obsolete.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:39 am
To continue on the humorous side, the vile RT has one on the Pornhub reporting a huge increase
in searches for "Golden Showers". Perhaps the kiddies are adding a new term to their vocabularies.
It seems that Trump supporters are many and varied, and very loyal. To pretend that all these
shenanigans were needed to help elect him against such a faulty candidate as Hillary is pathetic
in the extreme. The terrible results, when we see how the new Administration is being gently helped
by the Senate including Democrats, will be bad for us all if their warlike statements lead to
facts. However, Obama's sending of 2800 tanks and 4000 troops to help Germany(!) and Poland against
"Russian aggression" right now, plus Hillary's promises, do not give a hopeful alternative scenario
for the "land of the free" or peace on earth.
Reply
W. R. Knight , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am
The saddest part of this entire debacle is that the intelligence agencies, as well as main
stream media, the president and most members of Congress have destroyed their own credibility.
Lacking credibility, they cannot be believed; and when they cannot be believed, they cannot be
trusted; and a government that cannot be trusted is doomed.
J. D. , January 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Trump proved more feisty than expected at his first press conference as President-Elect, hitting
back at both Buzzfeed ('You're fake news" and CNN ("you're organization is terrible") And went
on to say that "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a
liability," describing the urgency of cooperation in defeating terrorism. Lost in the shuffle
however was the source of the lies - British intelligence agencies.In fact, the NYTimes reported
Jan. 6 that the official report released last week by the US intelligence agencies, which accused
Putin of subverting the U.S. election, also came from British intelligence, which "raised an alarm
that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, and alerted
their American counterparts.Talk about foreign interference.
Get with the program! We are supposed to believe that all we have heard from and about the
CIA in this century was pure and innocent incompetence, and should therefore continue to put all
of our faith in their motives and methods.
Reply
The entire sordid mess needs to be dismantled brick by brick and rebuilt from the ground up.
Washington should be razed to the ground. It is beyond rescuing. it is beyond saving. It is rotten
from the foundations to the pinicle of the obilisk. The American People should declare war on
Washington DC and invade the place and clean house. Bring the Guillotine along with them and the
baskets for the heads.
The stench is overwhelming. It needs to be cleaned up. No it needs to be wiped from the face
of the earth. One of the founding fathers said that periodically, the tree of democracy had to
be watered with blood. That time has arrived.
Reply
Znam Svashta , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am
George Orwell predicted our current mess in his classic, "1984". Interestingly, that was the
year that the neocons took over the Pentagon's Office of Risk Assessment, the State Department,
and the whore-house American media.
Reply
Lin Cleveland , January 12, 2017 at 11:50 am
What's going on here? I think Julian Assange may be on to something. ( my bold )
"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling
class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider , he is part of
the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of
other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an
existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing
central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly,
but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States:
change for the worse and change for the better."–Julian Assange
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Thanks, Lin [for your 'bold.' Assange and Snowden are two voices "in the wilderness" always
worth listening to.
Reply
Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Brilliant– as always. No matter how vilified JA is and no matter how much he's lied about,
he still is a force for reason and subversion, both of which we desparately need. Thanks for the
quote.
Reply
D5-5 , January 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm
Curious to me in the two-pronged attack on Trump (a. demonizing to delegitimize and replace
with Pence coming from the political establishment; b. hysterical fear of Trump coming from left
wing journalism sources including left-oriented alternative news sites) is why the hysteria in
the left continues so virulently. Assange's comment, to me, is balanced and sober. We don't know
what will happen out of Trump and his collection of "idiosyncratic personalities," we don't know
what will turn out "change for the worse and change for the better," and all the fear-mongering
from people like Robert Reich, appearing regularly in Truthdig, is entirely speculative. I then
question–would these same people on the left, that I once thought to be colleagues, prefer Hillary
Clinton and "consolidation of power in the existing ruling class"? This fracturing in what I had
thought was an intelligent left opposition is disturbing.
As an "old leftie" myself, I'd have to agree with Paul Craig Roberts that there IS no left
anymore. It was co-opted and bought by Big Money. Maybe we need to forget about "left" and "right"
and operate according to our own minds rather tha taking our cues from apologists for the establishment
like Robert Reich. But it sounds like you're already doing that.
Reply
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Change that will undoubtedly benefit the privileged in a big way.
I don't give a crap about if Trump had prostitutes. That's between he and his wife. What I
do care about is if there are Trump financial threads to Russia and if his team had illegal meetings
with Moscow before the election. There are too many questions that need to be answered.
Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts.
Why won't he release his tax returns? It could only mean he is hiding something.
What benefit does the world intelligence community gain in smearing a president elect? Is it
financial? idealogical? Power? Are they not tied and beholdened more to the entrenched financial
hierarchies then to the ever changing political landscape?
What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?
Money, fame, a 2nd home in Portugal?
How does anyone watching that press conference not come away with the chilly realization that
our president-elect is psychologically impaired? My god you don't have to be a trained psychologist
to see the guy has some serious mental health issues.
Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm
"He's a vicious killer " – this is a music for the Kagans' clan
Reply
JayHobeSound , January 13, 2017 at 4:10 am
"What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?"
Reportedly he asked his neighbours to feed his cats and he went into hiding. Bizarre.
'Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts.'
Facts? I'm pretty familiar with Putin's career and I've seen nothing to suggest that Putin is
a killer at all.
Can you provide links to evidence? Not just links to other people making assertions without evidence,
please.
Reply
Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm
"Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts."
You talking about Trump or Putin? In any case has Russia or Putin killed as many people as America
or Obama. The "facts" say no, not even close.
Reply
stinky rafsanjani , January 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
vicious killer? since when is that a bad thing? jinkies, obama of nobel fame
sends missiles and drones around the planet, bombing and killing for fun and
profit. why, he even orders the assassination of citizens of his own country,
without trial even. meanwhile, putin has, umm look! a squirrel!
James van Oosterom , January 16, 2017 at 11:45 am
Nobody said it was a bad thing. You're inferring things. Stick to squirrels . Ah yes, the door .
Reply
Andreas Wirsén , January 12, 2017 at 11:54 am
A "new phase" in Intelligence meddling with presidential candidates, yes – but only in how
openly they stand behind it as the source. Campaigns to scandalize unwanted primary challengers
have been alleged before. Senator Gary Hart, for one, has said in interviews he believes he was
caught in a honey trap, which cost him his candidacy.
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Gary Hart, a potentially strong contender, was also [like Trump] not up to Deep State's standards
in Russophobia.
Reply
LongGoneJohn , January 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm
Didn't Trump just acknowledge that attacks on cyber US infrastructure including the DNC takes
place, in a general way? That is what his statement read and to me that does not sound like "Trump
acknowledges Russian DNC hack" at all.
So is it me, or ?
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm
No, LGJ, it's not just you who can read through MSMB[ullsh t.]
Reply
Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm
If Trump & Co. accept "the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government
hacked the emails," they are only saying that, as is common knowledge, everybody hacks everybody.
This is not, as Parry says, an acceptance of the intelligence "assessment" that Putin or Russian
hackers released the emails, or even got them. Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that
the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means
it cannot have been the Russians.
Assange and Murray might be right, and they might not. There is a term being tossed around
– "cutout". Just because an intermediary claims to be a DNC leaker doesn't mean he actually was
such.
Under the circumstances I just don't care. Now if the Russians or Chinese or Ugandans or anybody
else had done more than facilitate the release of true information useful to voters, I'd be agitated
myself. Not that I'd expect anybody else to be. US votes have been hacked ever since the no-verify
touchscreen devices were first introduced, and nobody in authority has given a hoot about it.
Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm
Zachary–you are so right. It drives me crazy that Bush got away with stealing the voting system
and all the Damn Dems care about is using it themselves. And now it drives me crazy that the Clintonistas
took down Bernie and are getting away with it. With that cat's paw Obusha hanging around to "work"
on rebuilding the DNC, we'll never see democracy again.
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 6:52 am
We must indeed Dump the Dems. We need a progressive party.
There is a strong progressive majority everywhere which is being deliberately fragmented by
the Dems. In the US, Clinton supporters must unify not only with the critics of Dem warmongering
for Israel and KSA, but also with the Trumpers who want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic
state. Clinton supporters will have to admit their mistake and abandon the Dems as a scam of oligarchy
serving only as a backstop for the Repubs.
The solution is for a third party to align moderate progressives (national health care, no
wars of choice, income security) with parts of the traditional right (fundamentalists, flag-wavers,
make America great) leaving out only the extreme right (wars, discrimination, big business imperialism),
use individual funding, and rely upon broad platform appeal to marginalize the Dems as the third
party.
RMDC , January 13, 2017 at 9:28 am
Sam F. I agree with you but you have to stop using the term "progressive." The Clinton faction
of the demo party owns that term. It arose with John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta
is the ideologue of contemporary progressivism. It has nothing to do with the Progressive movement
of the early 20th century.
The right term is Sander's term: Democratic Socialism. I know socialism is a problematic term,
too, but at least it is now claimed by the right people.
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 2:20 pm
RMDC: Do you think "Progressive" can be brought back to its original meaning, or given a better
one, despite people falsely claiming to be progressive? Sanders' term might be incorporated into
that. It would be nice to deny the fakers the use of it.
Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm
"we'll never see democracy again."
Humm? When did we last see that "democracy" thing?
Reply
Bill Cash , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Trump could end all this by releasing his tax returns but he won't do it. I believe the intelligence
community had fears that once inaugurated, Trump would squash the whole thing. The Russian connection
is the only theory that connects all the dots. I'm waiting t see what happens with Assange. Will
he suddenly be able to go to Sweden?
As far as Trump's behavior, don't forget he was accused of raping a 13 year old girl but the woman
had to withdraw the suit because her life was threatened.
Why is your post such a strong reminder of Pizzagate?
Reply
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm
Wont make any difference what t he does. He's an outsider. There's no escape except trying
& convicting the traitors running obama.
Reply
Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm
Very interesting column. I guess Mr. Trump is getting a lesson in who really runs things around
here.
Reply
Patricia Victour , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Unless Trump killed a prostitute on film, how could whatever is on the alleged video be any
worse than the pussy-grabbing debacle and all the other accusations of sexual predation? I don't
think you can embarrass Trump. He would just brush it off, and his base would probably think he
was a super stud.
Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm
Oh, I don't know, they could well have much worse stuff to leak, given Mr. Trump's complete
lack of control of his desires.
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm
I collected a lot of "stuff" on Trump from the internet in the past year, and was surprised
to see virtually none of it used against him. My best guess is that Hillary & Co. didn't think
it was necessary against their carefully selected "easiest" opponent. That "stuff" is still available,
and might well be used to buttress wilder and unverifiable claims.
col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Yesterday on anther site i wrote how Hillary was complicit in a very serious charge.
Please watch video titles, where is Eric braverman on you tube . I have watched some and most
of the material gives you the reality of what is occurring. A example is this. A fact is Gaddafi
wanted to have some kind of gold backed Dina money policy. Fact. So Libya had a lot of gold maybe
hundreds of tons. Where is it now. Did the "invaders' get it with their usual cut out Libyan man?
In the spirit of trying to make a better world i put this up, it seems political unbiased however
it shows the Clinton as they are?
"Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign
States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament
(53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.
"African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment
for oil/gas Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated
that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great
Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project
was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.
That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only
bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary
to repair it."
Speaking of "leaks", isn't the specific accusation in this case that Trump paid a prostitute
to "take a leak" on the bed where he believed the Obamas had spent the night? (So I guess it was
the prostitute that had "worse stuff to leak"!)
Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm
And while no one at Trump's press conference mentioned the specifics, Trump stated, "Does anyone
really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me."
The Saker writes in "The Neocon's Declaration of War Against Trump":
"After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be
called a declaration of war against Donald Trump. [ ] All of the above further confirms to me
what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write
'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority
should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state"
(which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that,
but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed. [ ]
As I predicted it before the election, the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their
history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war
between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total
war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon
controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially
in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will
say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost
regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about
his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted
for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what
they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against
Trump, I predict that these millions of Americans will turn to violence to protect what they see
as their way of life
If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ŕ la Hillary or McCain gives the
order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see
what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their
own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give
the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply
refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War
cliché) this can also happen in the USA."
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:54 pm
If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ŕ la Hillary or McCain gives
the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could
see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot
at their own people.
At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly
militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".
I suspect that's why a great many of them joined up in the first place. Finally, carefully chosen
drone operators thousands or tens of thousands of miles away won't have the slightest problem
slaughtering evildoers. That's what they do all the time in their regular jobs.
Brad Owen , January 12, 2017 at 3:44 pm
Don't forget veterans, millions of them. When THEY stepped up to the North Dakota pipeline,
security forces backed off. Backwards' described scenario could be our "1991" moment to break
free and break the Deep State, and reinstating Glass-Steagall would break their Imperial paymasters
in The City and The Street. A new World could suddenly come about, faster than even the USSR/Warsaw
Pact disappeared.
Reply
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm
At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly
militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".
Police departments all over the U.S. and other nations have a long history of acting as goon
squads and occasional firing squads for their local establishments. Lots of examples in labor
histories.
Reply
Peter Loeb , January 13, 2017 at 8:23 am
KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE .
Special thanks to Zachary Smith.
In the US it's called "heroism", patriotism" and the rest. But if we are
inconvenienced to kill our own people, we can kill other peoples'
people. Gigantic weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and Israel
are proof of that.
By the way, did anyone happen to notice in the NDAA (Defense Authorization
Act) the increase of funds to rebels in another country whose goal is to
defeat the Syrian Government?
-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
PS For those who object to our killing our own people in the US join
Black Lives Matter.
Reply
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 2:53 am
At the very least, the US should get rid of this prolonged waiting period between the elections
and actual assuming power by the president-elect. It was meant to facilitate the orderly transition
of power, but as we see now it is serving just the opposite goals. I cannot believe Obama is so
keen on hurting Trump he is ready to badly hurt his own country as well.
Reply
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump
The motive I see is to "soften" him up for his impeachment. Given Trump's temperament, it could
be a winning strategy for the people who prefer President Pence. In my barely informed opinion,
that would include a majority of both parties in both houses of the US congress.
Joe Tedesky , January 12, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Read section 4 of the 25th amendment .
"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. Although Donald Trump may
give one some consternation to his being a qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, Mike Pence
may bring down the house with his religious leanings inside of his political philosophy. Either
way we Americans are in for a most interesting time of it in our country's brief history. We should
all probably prepare ourselves for the worst, and hope that the best will happen.
Zachary wasn't Mike Pense your governor, or do I have you in the wrong state?
Realist , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm
Fascinating and disturbing at the same time. That section was surely MEANT to apply to the
president's health and physical capacity to do the job. However, a declaration by the VP (supported
only by a simple majority of the cabinet or the congress) "that the President is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office" can be based in an insurrection, a coup, or simply the erosion
of political capital. Gerald Ford could have argued that Richard Nixon no longer had the support
to govern (which is what Nixon himself conceded as the basis for his resignation). It basically
gives the VP and whatever insurgents he can muster the ability to quickly overthrow the sitting
president without the inconvenience of an impeachment and trial in the Senate. It could be the
Maidan without the messy blood all over the pavement. How wonderful.
Very resourceful of you in looking that up, Joe. I would never have imagined the seeds for
a coup existed right in the constitution.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:16 am
I have a saying: For the people in law-enforcement, law is a fringe benefit. Those who control
law always use it as a tool. Have you ever heard of a coup which was not based on some law, even
if it was the one written post-festum by the coup plotters? In other words, a coup is never difficult
to justify by the winners.
I have no doubt that the coup that Joe describes is possible. But the issue for the coup plotters
has always been: what happens with all the Trump voters after such a coup, the millions of them?
Will they sit and just watch the destruction of their social contract?
To some extent such US coup dilemma is not dissimilar to the nuclear war dilemma: easy to start,
difficult to finish.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 10:53 am
KIza, nice to hear from you it's been awhile.
Read this link. Trump got 26.8% of the total citizenry to vote for him. In all honesty I haven't
seen any polls on how the American populace shakes out on these controversies such as this most
recent fake news story, but I would imagine that a clever beat down campaign would be able to
soften the blowback .but then again I agree with you to some extent, that by pushing Trump out
of office this would have to have some kind of consequence that would not be pretty.
Joe, in general I am trying to highlight that it is one thing to bamboozle sheeple with a talk
of democracy (which does not exist) and another to openly crush even this reassuring lie. I just
cannot see the end game of a US coup and Trump is but a minor obstacle if they want to start it.
Therefore, they really want to make a Trump a lame and controllable President, not to take
over. Maintaining a reassuring lie of democracy is a much more sophisticated and efficient control
mechanism than direct control. I may we wrong but I do believe that Trump is just being house
trained/broken by TPTB in front of our eyes.
You write: I have not seen any polls how American populace shakes out on these controversies.
My reading of the online beat is that the Trump voters are not swayed, whilst the Clinton voters
use the "controversy" as confirmation that they were right all along about Trump. But then Clinton
voters would receive a confirmation even from an oily rag thrown in their direction. In other
words, a mountain shook and a mouse was born – almost no change at all on either side.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm
KIza your comparing Trump's attackers to how the MH17 story was spun is right on.
Trump is an easy target since his nature is certainly different than that of the usual norm
of our politico class who are cookie cutter politicians on the whole. I'm disappointed by how
people such as Michael Moore are going out of their way attacking Trump, while they completely
ignore how corrupt and dishonest the Clinton's are.
I wouldn't go so far as to predict that Trump supporters won't rebel against his impeachment,
but there again I believe the Trump supporters would be out numbered due to an over aggressive
media who could sway the majority into believing we must get Trump out of office. Any other method
other than impeachment is to horrible to even contemplate, so let's hope that all of our concerns
turn to ashes, and that for the good or bad of it that Trump finishes out his first term in good
health.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm
Yes, Joe, those 26.8% of citizenry who voted for Trump are built into 75-76% of citizenry who
do not believe in the MSM any more and in the John Brennan's two kitchen sinks, that is, his two
top secret but leakable kompromat dossiers on Trump – the first one apparently from an MI6 agent
and the second one promoted by the BBC (source unknown yet).
But this is not about Clintons any more, this is about the owners of the Clintons training/braking
Trump to be like the Clintons. If they cannot have a Clinton as a President, they want to have
a President as Clinton. If kompromat does not work, maybe a billet will, their patience is limited.
Always enjoyable to exchange thoughts with you Joe.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 11:14 am
Realist, considering how our country's founders were a bunch of slave owners declaring how
all men are created equally well need I say more?
Words are just words, that is until lawyers interpret these legal words into a reality, which
doesn't always fit into our own personal definition of a certain word usage. You and I deal with
this stuff all the time. Whether it be a traffic ticket, or an ordinance summons, we read one
thing, and the judge administers another thing. Prisons are filled with people who swear with,
'yeah but' explanations which give these prisoners no relief what so ever so I do think these
crafty legislators could pull a fast one, and install Mike Pence into the White House. Let's you
and I hope that I'm the one out in left field with my 25th amendment comment, and that we won't
end up with a Christian whack job as our president.
Reply
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Yeah, Pence was elected Governor of Indiana. But despite this state being one of the most conservative
in the nation, Pence was too "nutty" and "far-right" for Mississippi North, and would have surely
been defeated. Now the man is one heartbeat/one impeachment conviction from becoming President
of the United States.
Quote: "From his denial of climate change to his belief in creationism, Pence is the most
hard-right radical to ever appear on a national ticket. Just this week a federal court had to
block his atrocious bill barring Syrian refugees from his state because his reasoning that Syrians
scare him is discriminatory."
Quote: "it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of
Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national
debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice
emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured
my imagination.""
It's a fact we are very, very close to having a Rush 'druggie' Limpaugh clone as President.
In my opinion, Pence is Trump's worst mistake up till now. If they can't have Hillary, for the
neocons and neo-liberals and the Christian End-Timers there remains Worse-Than-Hillary Mike Pence.
Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist
Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control
of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance
of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at
bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.
"The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That's the only legitimate
government," contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including
"The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." "So when they speak
of business, they're speaking not of something separate from God, but they're speaking of what,
in Mike Pence's circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system
is God-ordained."
Zachary I looked forward to your reply, since you always have references to your level headed
comments .so thanks for getting back to me.
In my world I don't even like bringing up the word God, or religion, since I believe a government
should be governed in a truly secular way. Who I pray to, and who I pay taxes to, are two completely
different things. My devotion to God is a very private matter, and I don't need some politician
interpreting God's greatness to me in anyway. So with that if Mike Pense wants to preach the gospel
to me, then he should resign from public office and become a full fledged preacher and even then
I will not go to his mean spirited church. Amen.
Realist , January 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm
What a troubling coincidence that Hulu is releasing its production of "the Handmaid's Tale"
by Margaret Atwood this April, which tells the story of the United States government being taken
over by extreme Christian fundamentalists and the consequences, especially to women and religious
dissenters. Read the book by Atwood and you'll see where Isis/Daesh got many of their ideas on
punishment and control of the masses. The Spanish Inquisition was six hundred years ago, but its
urges lie just beneath the veneer of our civilised modern world. Human nature hasn't changed,
only technology has. I thought this country was in danger of playing out the novel during Dubya's
administration, as 9-11 was exactly the kind of pretext for such a takeover in the book's plot
narrative and the Islamic world was portrayed as the great global adversary just as many Americans
believe in the real world. Trump has never struck me as a religious man, certainly not a zealot,
but Pence, with a little help from the Deep State, he could bring this disturbing novel to life.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 pm
I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence.
A very plausible and ominous possibility.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:53 am
Seriously Bill even taking into consideration how some like Glenn Beck along with Rick Santelli
ridiculed an early President Obama back in 2009, I can't recall a more hostile media such as the
likes of how this current day corporate media is going after Trump. True, that Donald Trump by
just being Donald Trump can be an outrageous person with his words and actions, but still I just
can't get over the 24/7 media coverage, and how most of it isn't good coverage at that. This leaves
me to wonder if we all are not being setup for something big.
With Trump's winning streak putting away a whole herd of Republican primary candidates, and
how he sent 'low energy Jeb' packing, and then to go on and beat Hillary by his winning the Electoral
vote, he has had a great run. Now Donald Trump is battling not only the CIA/FBI/NSA, but he is
also bumping up against the congressional establishment. You know that McCain and Graham hate
him, but you can only bet that there is yet much more to come.
I'm sorry, but I don't sense there is much good to come with all of this. Thanks for the reply.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:57 am
Joe, I wonder if people missed the crazy similarity of the media campaign on the Trump "report"
and the one on MH17 ?
It appears that the TPTB have decided that if they generate enough media screaming, the lack
of proof does not matter any more.
Thus, I have become a strong proponent of the theory that whatever TPTB use outside, it is
only a practice for what they will use (more productively) inside. Drones anyone?
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm
KIza read my comment above, it pertains to what you brought up here.
All this turmoil and a dysfunctional Congress insures that nothing will change. The 1% loves
the status quo and will do anything to preserve it. Simply a smokescreen to keep US from dealing
with the corporate stranglehold on our government.
An Empire in decline.
Reply
Mike Flores , January 12, 2017 at 1:24 pm
While others laugh and make jokes, those of us who study Intel know that what just happened
with the leaked report was that the CIA has involved itself in U.S. politics, which it is forbidden
to do. How did the alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA begin? President Truman had allowed
200 Nazi Intel agents to come into the U.S. – including the men who created the blueprint for
the holocaust. Fearing Joe McCarthy would discover this, the CIA faked an Intel report and has
spent decades ever since lying about Joe. They actually confessed that his 2 lists were correct,
so they had to fool him with a fake dossier right before the Army hearings to shake his confidence.
Just search CIA AND THE POND and you will find on their website STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE in the
last third of the article a full confession of framing Joe. This Facebook photo album THE REAL
JOSEPH McCARTHY is packed with forbidden information and can be viewed with this link by anyone
whether they are on FB or not. The alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA began by hiding
the people responsible for the holocaust. ( We should keep in mind Truman was KKK and forbade
the bombing of the train tracks to the death camps. The reason soldiers were not prepared for
the camps was that none had been told about them. Truman did not want our troops wasting time
on them). Interesting to note that absolutely no one has ever done an article or book on the impact
of the beliefs of the KKK on the 5 Democrats who were Presidents and Klansmen in the 20th century.
That would reveal the true nature of the Democratic Party.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153995222685986.1073741929.695490985&type=1&l=6dd1544b9d
Reply
Bill , January 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm
You don't mention President Obama, but it certainly seems likely that he's involved with this.
Who told Brennan and Clapper to go on TV to hype the intelligence reports and bad-mouth the next
President?
And were the leakers within the agencies acting on their own, or were they given orders from
above? There's a conspiracy going on and it's not my imagination.
Does the behavior rise to the level of treason or espionage?
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:58 pm
Obama is a deadhead it is Brennan who instructs him. But who instructs Brennan?
Reply
Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm
As I have just learned from another reader's comment on another article, David Spring has augmented
his earlier article to an 85-page expose. Seems it was both a leak and a hack, but in neither
case by "the Russians."
I hope Ray McGovern and especially Wm Binney (and some Trump guy) read this and tell us what
they think!
I read it last night. Very much worth the couple of hours it took.
Reply
Realist , January 14, 2017 at 3:42 am
Well, that's THE comprehensive treatment in a nutshell. Everything documented chronologically.
Nothing important left out. Everything explained clearly and concisely. As organised as possible
and argued like a philosopher rather than a lawyer. The man has exceptional writing skills as
well as incredible computer knowledge. I'd like to see him question Clapper on the witness stand.
I hope that President Trump puts the Justice Department on this case to do a thorough investigation,
including potential indictments of spooks that perjured themselves and/or engaged in partisan
activities during the election and its ugly aftermath.
Reply
Oleg , January 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm
I am really surprised to no end. Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility
of your government? I do not really know what would happen in the US but in Russia there would
be riots. Any leader in Russia can govern only until he/she is trusted. Think Tsar Nicholas II,
Gorbachev I hope it will not get to this and some sanity will prevail in your country.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:22 pm
Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government?
What credibility? Oleg, if you check the graphic at the top of the right sidebar on this page
you will see a reference to "I. F. Stone" who was one of this nation's great journalists of the
20th Century. He is noted for a dictum that says, "All governments lie." All governments certainly
include the U.S. government. You can get plenty of examples of lies with a little effort.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 11:12 pm
Lies out of government agencies and elected politicians are not the only problem. Hypocrisy
is another and has been part of American governance since the writing of the Declaration of Independence
by slave owners who said that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Now hypocrisy is rampant with politicians decrying alleged Russian intervention
is U.S. elections with the claim that it is wrong for any nation to interfere in the elections
of another nation. There is no nation on the planet that interferes in the governments of other
nations than the United States.
Reply
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:02 am
Well, I certainly agree, but a government can still be largely trusted even if they resort
to some petty lies. As we all do too sometimes. But this this is not a petty thing, this is an
intentional attack on the whole institution of elections and democracy when they try to impeach
the elected President because some part of the establishment, not the people, dislike him. This
has a potential to really get very dangerous, and having any kind of uprisings (as was also mentioned
by other commenters above) in a country like the US is extremely dangerous for the whole world.
Reply
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Anyone in Washington seeking a golden shower from a couple of Russian prostitutes just has
to hop on one of those all-expenses-paid AIPAC junkets to Israel.
It's truly amazing how streams of urine help elevate one's anxiety about Iran's nuclear energy
program.
American journalist and activist Chris Hedges noted a key purpose of the declassified report
"Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election" from the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):
"to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation
of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the
Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It
made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be
integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries
such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat,
the arms sales plummet. War is a racket."
Israeli arms sales to Europe more than doubled from $724 million in 2014 to $1.63 billion in
2015. http://jfjfp.com/?p=83806
Israel is the leading arms exporter in the world per capita (2014), and ranks 11th among the
top 20 exporters of military equipment and systems (2011-15).
75-80% of Israeli military exports are generated by just three companies - the state-owned
Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries and the publicly traded Elbit Systems.
The largest categories of Israeli military exports are upgrading aircraft and aerospace systems
(14%), radar and electronic systems (12%), drones (11%), and intelligence and information systems
(10%).
In 2015, the Russian government described Israel's delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine as
"counterproductive". There is a close arms trade and production co-operation between Israel and
Poland. Israeli companies have invested in building arms manufacturing facilities in Poland.
Reply
jfl , January 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm
However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something
in them which will hang him.
- said to have been said by redhat richelieu
what is known is that the nsa/cia/fbi have all the dirt on everyone, and that they use it
on the leaders of the eu, for instance.
if the only thing that comes out of this filthy little exercise is the death of the nsa/cia/fbi
– superpower america's superstazi – by executive fiat it will have been worth trump's election.
it's either that or another dead president. with pence playing lbj.
Reply
F. G. Sanford , January 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Funny how these "leaks" work, isn't it? If there really were an "insider" able to provide insight
on the deepest, darkest secrets that had been gathered by Russian intelligence, why would any
responsible intelligence agency completely destroy that asset only to expose a mundane fetish
like "golden showers"? But don't anybody dare leak "The Torture Report". Don't even consider leaking
information about war crimes, election fraud, financial crimes, murder, state corruption or state
sponsorship of terrorism.
Just my opinion, but here's how it really went. The "hack" scenario is a diversion from the
"leak" scenario. The "deep state" didn't really want Hillary. While she may superficially represent
their interests, the Clinton machine is too knowledgeable, too experienced and too selfish and
self-centered to predictably execute their programs. The Clintons have plenty of dirt on them.
But they had enough dirt on her to compromise her electability. They don't want Trump either,
but they can manufacture or dig up enough dirt to compromise his Presidency. Their first choice
was Jeb Bush. Their second choice is Mike Pence.
The DNC stuff was leaked by an insider, and the Podesta stuff was hacked by the NSA. The only
plausible alternative points to hacking attempts by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian hacking outfit "RuH8",
not the Russians.
A bunch of recent articles seek to analyze Barack Obama's legacy, personality and motivations.
That's all superfluous. The "real deal" has been well documented. His grandparents were CIA His
mother was CIA His first job after law school was with Banking international Corporation, a CIA
"front company". He was groomed and thoroughly vetted.
Nobody wants to hear the truth or look at real evidence. The circumstantial – though well documented
– evidence connecting Ted Cruz's father to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald
is actually much more plausible and substantial than the evidence for "Russian hacking" of the
election, yet the general public has no problem dismissing that as a "conspiracy theory".
Between the two, Trump was perceived – mistakenly – as the lesser threat to the "deep state".
Just a guess, but we may be about to see all hell break loose.
It's about time some journalists and researchers started naming names and making lists. The
"New McCarthyism" uses lists to good advantage. It creates the perception of a vast subversive
network dedicated to destroying our "democracy". Until some names are named and fingers pointed,
the "deep state" and its intelligence community enforcement arm will continue to control the "democracy"
we don't really have. Blackmail is just one of their methods, and it's far from the worst.
My favorite quotes from the "Company Intelligence Report":
"However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow " (Is this a pun?)
"PUTIN angry with senior officials who "overpromised" on TRUMP and further heads likely to
roll as result. Foreign minister LAVROV may be next" (What Putin is going to make him change the
sheets in Trump's hotel room?)
" TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and
evidence hard to obtain" (Were the "key" witnesses the same ones that claim Putin shot down MH-17?)
I think they dug up the script writers from "The Man from Uncle" and put them back to work.
This sounds like a Quinn Martin Production straight out of a Hollywood "B Movie".
Reply
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm
First Draft coalition "partner" BuzzFeed is leading the charge to make fake news, hybrid war
propaganda, and hoaxes "more shareable and more social"
FG, I'm not gay, but I always scroll down to find your comment. You are always looking into
the big picture, not the big illusion.
backwardsevolution , January 13, 2017 at 1:44 am
Gregory – I agree. His comments are always very good.
Reply
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Me three.
F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm
Thanks to all – sometimes I wonder if it's worth putting in my two cents. We're probably a
statistically insignificant group of readers on the world's stage, but I like to think at least
it's worth a try.
Reply
We must organize beyond cyberspace as this is a coup in action. CIA is greatest meddler of
all nations, coups and assassinations well documented. DC is the Aegean stable that must be cleaned,
a truly Herculean task and We the People have to get organized because this planet is imperiled.
Agree with Dan that whole sordid mess is beyond a swamp, a stinking pit and pitchforks are necessary!
Reply
LJ , January 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm
It's more doublethink logic from the Intelligence heads. It would require a tremendous leap
of faith for anyone with a brain to think that Russia/Putin/Lavrov would use this info, if it
existed at all, in public manner. To do so wouldn't help them achieve a goal and it would only
hurt Russia .. The tape would never become public even if it existed. That means this rumor is
clearly slander and was aimed at some political end. . Where is the smoking gun?, sorry. By the
way , Putin is friends with Bertoloscini , Sarkozy and other notorious womanizers and is known
to like women himself. This is not something he would do. He is not a mobster. This is puerile
and it is coming from the Democrats although the word is that George Bush initially hired the
guy, the former MI5 spy, who wrote the dossier/smear piece on Trump in the first place. . Hoover
would have kept it in shop and tried to leverage Trump himself.
Reply
Bernie , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm
There's an article at ABC News today about US tanks rolling into Poland. This reminds me of
Nazis rolling into Austria in 1938 and then Poland on Sept 1, 1941 to start WWII. "American soldiers
rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism
in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia. Some people waved and
held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland
from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. "
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Like Poland, Ukraine is eager to express its devotion to the Reich, er, its "Euro-Atlantic
aspirations".
If only for the sake of NATO "cooperation" and "capacity building", Poland and Ukraine have
much to forgive and forget:
Of course, reports of Russian "euphoria" remain "unconfirmed".
Reply
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm
Absurd. Who is this "they" everyone is talking about? How many are/is this 'they'? 5, 10 20?
Who is in control of 'they'? Who's in charge? The political elite? Do they have a club and do
they meet for bridge every Tuesday? Do they have a secret handshake? Are they all really Mason's?
This conspiracy holds no credibility because 'they' is just an 'idea'. That is all. Until someone
can give names of those who are responsible and running this political elite then its all storybook
conjecture. We should be more concerned with the obvious psychological dementia affecting the
president elect. He was a total looney tune in that press conference.
What you are saying with this list then, Wendi, it is not the political elites, intelligence
agencies or career politicians whoTrump continuously rails against as the cause for the end of
the American Empire. It is the financial hierarchies that Trump so desperately wants to be a part
of. Putin is obviously at the top of this list and Trump sees him as a way to become a player
in this club. That makes sense to me.
Reply
Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm
"THEY" are the people who control the MONEY. They are referred to as the BANKERS. Those are
a mafia that runs the political circus BEHIND the scene. The parties and elections are a diversion
to keep the idiots busy arguing with each other like the crazy fans of sports teams. The BANKERS
always make sure that the "idiots" are choosing between alternatives that ultimately BOW to the
BANKERS. Read for example the following:
– "All the President's Bankers" by Naomi Prins.
– "Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.
– "The Crisis of Democracy" a publication of the Tri-Lateral Commission on their website.
-Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism | The Inline image 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-whetten/goldman-wall-street-and-f_b.. .
Jun 19, 2010 · The most disturbing aspect of the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit isn't just the legal
violations involved Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism.
-Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists | FacebookInline image 1 http://www.facebook.com/Stop.Goldman
Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists. 95,662 likes · 6,188 talking about this. Get the Honest
truth on the economy, this page sponsors no organization
Those will give you a good start ..Good Luck.
Reply
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 7:29 am
Perhaps you do not mean the ridicule you suggest. The effects of economic aristocracy and political
conspiracy are of course not "storybook conjecture" but the combined deductions of experienced
observers. That would become conjecture only if specific persons were accused, which is seldom
done without evidence.
The demand for detailed evidence of an old-fashioned conspiracy to effect societal trends is
not valid. It becomes propaganda when used to attack the means by which we all deduce that events
are driven by cabals, or loose organizations of interested parties. While we are occasionally
surprised by the detailed evidence that emerges long after events, even that is incomplete and
not very relevant.
The means of ridicule shows its invalidity. There is no reason to speculate upon clubs, meetings,
or handshakes, as there is no need for such specific or antiquated organization. No modern organization
works that way, no one has suggested that, and no one here has reasoned from such nonsense, but
rather from well documented effects of cabals. So I hope that you merely overstated a wish for
more evidence.
Robert, Could it not be true that the real losers in the neocon push to extend the American
dominion might actually be the intelligence services? They have become so politicized in domestic
politics since the Iraq War build up (a la Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell) that
they figure they can shape American public opinion to support any war, no matter how "unthreatening"
the enemy (say Russia) might actually be. Originally they were basically "fact collectors" (objective)
– at first from around the world, but since 9/11's Patriot Act, at home also. Then, they became
"interpreters and analyzers of motives" which takes a bit of a weed-gee board (subjective!) on
the part of the "experienced eye". When whatever these very effective (and appreciated) fact collectors
opine suddenly becomes gospel in their "estimates" (interpretation), we have lost the ability
to even influence the fate of our nation. Is this the country I grew up in? Or, has it been this
way since we were led so effectively to support World War I? Take care, HM
Reply
Thurgle , January 12, 2017 at 6:44 pm
The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the
story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead
use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who
signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped
payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It
would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid
saying.
Reply
BlackPete , January 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm
When it comes to cavorting with prostitutes JFK was the undisputed champion. Given the high
regard JFK is held in in some circles maybe Trump's alleged misbehaviour is a positive sign. Also,
now that Trump's behaviour has been made public isn't the Russian threat to expose him now worthless
and their alleged hold/influence gone?
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm
Its not about the hookers. That's useless drivel. It's about the potential of illegal financial
dealings with Russia prior to the election. Just show the damn tax returns. What the hell is he
afraid of? What could possibly go wrong?
Are you keen on asking Clintons to reveal their financial dealings with Saudis, the sponsors
of 9/11?
How about the Kagans' clan being currently "supported" financially by Qatari?
And this is much more interesting than tax return: "The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid
the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow.
They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid
saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was
a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion
found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders
were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying."
It is controlling, deceptive, organized, bloody and does not give a "rat ass" about the needs
of any other human being on earth who does not belong to it!
It neither tolerates opposing views from anybody who does not belong to its members nor allows
the outsiders to organize . It is determined to be the lens through which everybody under its
control see the rest of the world; any conclusion drawn by the besieged population, based on what
it is forced to see, must conform to the "DEEP STATE" norms; otherwise, you are in deep trouble.
The POTUS or the Congress must toe lines dictated by the members of this organization, (the Deep
State). We are observing that no effort is being spared to see to it that President-Elect toes
the "DEEP STATE" line; it is deep and scary indeed!
Reply
John , January 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm
Russia is the half naked female in the magic show The real slight of hand is the relationship
with the American oligarch and china .wow !!! . talking about messing with the bottom line some
of you big brain folks will get this in 4 ..3 2 ..lol
Reply
There is little doubt that the obvious blackmail will never be covered in that light by main
stream media. To those of us who are historians or are natural skeptics or have actually lived
through those times, this is all fairly obvious. They are trying to put Donald Trump in a corner
so he can be controlled.
I suspect that is why Trump retained Steve Bannon for. Not just a house racist but someone
who can get down and dirty on those that dish up dirt on Trump. We'll have to see if it works.
Headlines: "Donald unleashes TwitterBomb on CIA". But he'll have to go on the internet since the
CIA owns the press in the USA.
He has two choices. Listen to the CIA and do their bidding which is the requirement to start
WWIII with Russia or resist and be smeared in the press. It's an uphill battle too. Unlike Silvio
Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump does not actually own the press. That will make it
especially hard to do.
This thing is shaping up to be a geopolitical oil war. Rex and the Russians vs the Saudi/CIA
Team USA.
All I can say is fine America. Don't give a damn about privacy. Don't give a damn about anything.
But one of these days this massive spying ring gathering every shred of any and all traces of
your life and filing them away forever cannot be good. It will most certainly not end well.
When AI has us all pinned up against a wall threatening to out all of us if we do not do exactly
what it wants then what will we do?
We need some privacy laws. Also we need to throw the main stream media out with the trash.
It is pure evil. Back in the day, the press wouldn't run the stories about MLKs extramarital affairs
it recorded secretly. The press demanded to know the source of the B.S. and the FBI did not want
to tip their hand so the Mexican standoff led to the suicide letter which said "if you accept
the Nobel Prize, we will shame you and ruin you and you should consider preserving you legacy
by killing yourself instead. At least the MSM had some ethical standards and smelled a rat and
refused to run the stories. Imagine that. If MLK was alive today we and we still had segregation,
people and the media would fight to keep it! MLK would be a portrayed in the press as a philandering
bad guy. A sexual predator. The Civil Rights movement would end in a quagmire of gossip surrounding
its leader.
The Republicans have certainly had their fun with it too making Monica Lewinsky describe to
a court the distinctive features of the president's privates. I bet they were rolling in the aisles
when that happened. Now it's their turn. Will they defend Trump or will they hope that perhaps
Mike Pence would make a better leader.
All this tawdry B.S. really gets old fast. I could care less what people do in private as long
as nobody gets hurt.
One person abroad when asked what they thought about Bill Clinton's circumstances replied they
were confused since after all we were not electing the Pope. Amen. I feel the same way about Trump.
It's all B.S.
The problem is America can't remember what happened yesterday. We are collectively like terminal
Alzheimer patients. Two seconds after we see something, we forget it and are completely susceptible
to B.S.in two seconds after we forgot what just happened which ignores the facts which occurred
a mere two seconds earlier but we are none the wiser since we can't remember what happened more
than two seconds ago. That means there are a lot of opportunities each day to fool us.
What ever happened to the story about James Comey influencing the election? We just forgot
it. What ever happened to all of the other historically "likely suspects" thought to have been
likely suspects in vote rigging schemes. They are all absent and not presented as possible influencers
of the election by our CIA owned press. Instead we are presented with a fake narrative filled
with salacious gossip and naughty bits designed to turn public opinion into a weapon for further
increases in militarization and military spending while preserving foreign relationships which
benefit wealthy investors.
We need to wake up and start taking some strong medicine to ward off the Alzheimer disease
that is affecting us in order to put the daily snow job presented by the MSM and the CIA into
perspective. That perspective would include what just happened two seconds ago.
Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen since the medication would have to include administering
it to the MSM too.
The ability of the MSM to erase our collective memory and present us with a new fake narrative
on any given day should ring alarm bells that we are obviously vulnerable to being fooled.
We are being fooled. Every day. Time to start taking the meds.
Reply
Jurgen , January 12, 2017 at 10:01 pm
This is no "deep state" this is rather in-plain-sight US Government at work.
Trivial task:
1) Create a dense smoke screen by broadcasting on every single TV channel non-stop anti-Russian
and anti-Trump*** hysteria (they know it can't go wrong – they know Trump would try to reply to
every single fake thus making their task easier and the picture even more colorful)
2) Behind that smoke screen ship few thousands of US troops and tanks over to Poland and to those
parasitic micro quasi-states in Baltic and by doing that de-facto lay foundation for 4-5 new military
bases,
which (yet another NATO expansion) otherwise would not be approved and likely axed by Trump. But
now it went through s-m-o-u-ht-ly, like a butter. Highest class of the old Shell Game. Where CIA,
FBI and other spook shops are used as shills and the population of the US are total losers (everyone's
taxes will be used to pay for that yet another NATO expansion).
3) Behind the same smoke screen Obamacare has just been demolished late last night, congrats 20
million of poor folks!
*** Just wait till grainy videos surface showing some naked figures – one of them would be
vaguely resembling Trump.
That'd be no hard task for talented movie makers from either PSYOP or/and PAG (just remember their
masterpieces featuring Jessica Lynch and other ones featuring fat "Osama bin Laden"-looking dude).
Note: Authorization to create and finance state Propaganda apparatus, S.2943, was quietly passed
late Friday night Dec.23 behind the smoke screen of the same anti-Russian and anti-Trump hysteria,
thus what we are seeing now is perfectly lawful – propaganda machine at full throttle, who said
bureaucracy is slow(?)
As a non-citicen one has to wonder about the mind boggling machination the US politic is capable
of.
After WW2 the European countries looked upon the USA as the beacon of democratic values.
How bitter for the young generation to find, bit by bit, that behind the American facade lurked
a system
of smoke and mirrors. As ruthless as the very system they replaced in Europe. Slowly sugarcoating
their deep aims of domination. Under words like freedom,liberty and equality there is the underlying
unbelievable lust for money and with it power. From a human point of view, and the thinking person,
the politics and aims of the United States of America is an abomination for all the worlds people.
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:27 am
I certainly agree with you, but also I am really saddened that this pattern is far from being
unique and repeats itself all over and over again. The power corrupts, and it is true for states
as well as for people. But the US are indeed a sad champion in hypocrisy. Their predecessors were
not as skilled in hiding their true intentions behind the screen of freedom and all other very
attractive values. This makes it especially hard to accept.
Reply
Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 am
You've fingered the wrong culprits, or rather indicted fellow victims. It's the same bloody,
titled ruling class and their managerial elites in business and banking from old-line European/British
families who've been playing their Imperial games and still are. THEY created the late 19th century
Synachist Movement for Empire (SME) that gave birth to Fascism and its' feverish twin NAZIism,really
just movements to update the workings of the old-fashioned European Empires. It's also the Cecil
Rhodes/Milner RoundTable Group that dove-tailed with SME machinations to update old Empires, campaigning
strenuously, through their managerial elites on Wall Street, to recapture their "rogue colony"
USA and bring it into the British version of Empire. Right at the moment of FDR's death (may have
been assassination), the tables were turned on us, with Churchill leading stupid Truman around
by the nose speaking of iron curtains and Red Scares and Cold Wars. FDR's intelligence community
was taken over by Anglophile RoundTable allies in the post-war 40s. Having helped win the battles,
we lost the War to the fascist/NAZI SME and RoundTable groups who never received so much as a
scratch from all the bombs and bullets. Have you seen the show Hunting Hitler? WWII never ended,
the methods of fighting just changed.
Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:44 am
P.S. Not only did WWII never end, just a change in fighting methods, BUT the SME/RoundTable
Groups managed to get the two most powerful allies turned against each other: USSR and USA, so
that we, together, couldn't focus on the REAL enemy; SME/RoundTable group of elites (which would
have happened under FDR in post-war. He would have been President until January 1949 if he hadn't
died/been killed, Stalin told FDRs son that "that Churchill gang killed him" been trying to do
the same to Stalin) and THIS is why Trumps' Russophilia is such a grave and real threat to our
Establishment.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Brad you hit the nail on the head with your comments here .bravo!
Reply
John P , January 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm
Where on earth did you get this fable. Roosevelt had polio and needed a wheelchair, he was
a heavy smoker, had high blood pressure, angina followed by congestive heart failure all finalized
by a stoke. He had been weakening over a long period. This is all before the days of polonium
the USSR uses to kill its foes today.
Russia wasn't following the agreements drawn up in Yalta and fair free elections were not provided
in Poland and many Poles who fought for the allies in the war felt betrayed. The Soviets went
their own way, so were we to tell the Poles, tough.
Allied convoys, mainly British, at great cost in ships and men, supplied the Russians with war
supplies. They faced U-boats and heavily armed German battle-cruisers in freezing arctic waters.
After the war Germany got assistance in rebuilding, but the British were held to paying off debts
for US build liberty ships used to replace ships lost on the Atlantic convoys. I had an uncle
who's ship was sunk and very luckily, after much time in a life boat, was picked up. Many Americans
sat back and watched until Pearl Harbour. The British had warned the Americans some time before,
that they had lost contact with one of the Japanese fleets they were following, and you can guess
the consequences.
Britain saw what was coming when Germany attacked Poland and declared war on Germany. We didn't
have much. My father was almost killed assisting surgeon in a Liverpool hospital and luckily had
to leave to go out in an ambulance. When he came back the OR was gone. Bombed out. Luckily on
another occasion, the day staff had been told to stay on duty with the night staff and the nursing
residence was flattened. We had rationing until 1950, and had to grow food in our small back garden,
sprouts, peas, cabbage. We had 6 chickens and a rooster, a source of much needed nutrition from
eggs. I remember my mother weeping terribly after telling the police she had lost her ration books.
As a young lad I went on a search and eventually found them in the folds of a chair. You may never
have had to live through something like that.
And if you think America is any better than others, read "What is America?" by Ronald Wright.
Learn about the Trail of Tears and traders knowingly giving natives blankets used by whites with
small-pox.
Brad Owen , January 15, 2017 at 6:47 am
You relate the manufactured cover story, thanks to the anglophile Intel community that took
over in post-war forties, and did their typical change of the narration, much like they do today
with the phony crap about Russian aggression. This kind of sh!t has been going on since the revolution,
as the wealthy and powerful Imperial Tories never left and never relented. I got this"fable" from
EIR and Tarpley.net. It makes more sense to me than the current fable we call history. Check it
out for yourself, it amounts to mountains of articles and essays. It took me years to piece it
all together and relay it adequately in brief paragraphs. Choose to believe there is no over-arching
Imperial ruling class inimical to the interests of commoners if you want. I refuse to be blind
to it anymore.
David F., N.A. , January 12, 2017 at 10:18 pm
What if the intelligence community wasn't choosing between HRC and Trump, but, in stead, between
HRC and Pence. So no matter who won, wouldn't this hedged election mean business as usual?
Sorry, HRC, but for this downward neoliberal/fascist spiral thingy to work, you lesser-of-2-evil
conservaDems are just going to have to learn to share with the equally-corrupt conservatives.
See ya in 4 (or maybe 8 (naw, 4)).
Hail to the de facto Chief. da dada da dada dada dada da.
Reply
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm
You forgot to declare who is the drag queen in this matter?
Let's warn these evil psychopaths that a JFK OUTCOME IS OFF LIMITS.
That is the inference of your article.
By the way, Trump NEVER READ THE REPORT PRIVATELY. THERE WAS AN ORAL PRESENTATION, & CLAPPER
& Brennan took the CLASSIFIED documents back with them. Trump never read the 2 pg libel nor was
it discussed in the presentation.
Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:38 am
This is also reminiscent of Hoover and JFK. When JFK attended Hoover's office, he was handed
the President's file. JFK read some of the file while Hoover waited. When JFK stood up to leave,
Hoover told the President that the file remains with him. No wonder JFK and Bobby hated this dangerous
psychopath.
Reply
John P , January 12, 2017 at 11:43 pm
It's all slime, Americans let their political system fall into the trap of big money (lobbying
system and PACs) and neo-liberalism. I have no faith that Trump has the capabilities to be a good
president. His dialogue is simple, his temper easily aroused as are his feelings of hurt. He shows
little historical knowledge or political skills and speaks in a petty childish way. Who is going
to pay for the southern border wall ?! What is going to replace Obama's medical care programs,
more big business institutions ?! To me it looks like the Palestinians are on the Titanic run
by captain Trump and his son-in law, and only minutes to go. What real in depth policies has Trump
ever stated ?! Look out because Trump has a habit of passing on the bills be it cash, broken promises
or a road you never thought he would take.
And yes we need a calming down and discussion between the US, Russia and China, but I don't see
any hope in the line of folks Trump has chosen or Clinton. To me, Trump is like passenger on an
aircraft in which the pilot has expired and he is relying on others to tell him what to do because
he has no idea or understanding.
I think this and a world where jobs have been taken by microprocessors and robots, is a very dangerous
place and we don't need a blind narcissist leading the way. Sadly Bernie Sanders got burnt on
the stake.
Reply
Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:28 am
At times like this I miss the wise words of the late Chalmers Johnson. Chalmers was not encouraged
by the possibility of America stepping back from her efforts to control the entire world. He felt
the deep state was too committed to America's Full Spectrum Dominance. Is this the sloppy end
to the legacy of the Sole Super Power? Or, is this just the middle of the play before curtain
call?
When Russia came to the aid of Syria, I believed that we were entering the Multipolar World Order.
Hopefully that is still possible but better sooner than later before we enter the No World Order
of endless chaos. Does the American deep state really want to play Russian Roulette with live
nucs?
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm
I wish Chalmers Johnson were still with us, and able to comment on our current events good
of you to bring his name up.
Reply
John P , January 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm
I'm sorry Brad. With your EIR's reference, the first story I saw concerned Obama-care connected
to some Nazi policies. Next they claim global warming is fake. The US was the only western nation
without a national health program. People die because they haven't the money to pay for drugs
or health care. The health of a labourer is more important to them that a rich bloke sitting at
a desk. And excuse me but back in the late 60s I studied astronomy besides my major, another science,
and even then learned that both CO2 and methane each trap the sun's energy and cause temperatures
to rise. That was long before global warming came to peoples attention. Sorry, your story is pure
fiction.
Also, Trump hasn't a clue what he's talking about as far as global warming is concerned. Take
a look at the temperatures in the far north. They have been warmer than ever while we down here
are having huge cycles of heat and cold and are experiencing the fury that those changes can induce.
Dieter Heymann , January 16, 2017 at 2:23 pm
As a scientist you ought to know that CO2 and methane do not trap the sun's energy but absorb
upward IR radiation from Earth part of which they radiate back towards Earth's surface part out
into space. The blanket I use on my bed at night does not trap the heat generated by me either.
If it did it might catch fire?
John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Dieter I was just trying to make it simple, not write an article for Nature. The point being
so many people don't believe that we are altering the earths climate through burning fossil fuels.
We take down our forests, and plants are a big reason we are here as they take in carbon dioxide,
utilize the suns energy through photosynthesis and create organic compounds thus setting the stage
for further developments. There is so much irrationality out there brought on by job losses through
technology, and this creates huge divisions within society and that can lead to awful consequences
as history has shown.
I not sure some would understand the true science behind it. The subject was a reliance on a web
site that promoted climate change denial and a mentioned link between Obamacare and Nazism. Is
that a firm foundation of reliance ?
John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm
Just to clarify, I said astronomy wasn't my major, it was microbiology and medical sciences.
I had an interest in star gazing and following the planets.
Reply
Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Many liberals fail to understand that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and
international finance capital. Unlike the unwashed masses - these forces don't care if politician
has a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. It is how well they will serve capital.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
by Andrew C. McCarthy August 7, 2017 5:26 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy The scope of the
special counsel's investigation remains unlimited, despite the deputy attorney general's claim
that it's not a 'fishing expedition.' To what should be the surprise of no one, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein has tried to defend his conferral of boundless jurisdiction to special
counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump. But the conferral is
indefensible because Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement
of the basis for a criminal investigation. This failure is not cured by the DAG's stubborn
insistence that there really are limits to Mueller's jurisdiction . . . just not limits he can
talk about. Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, the DAG claimed that there is a
definite "scope of the investigation" because he and Mueller have agreed on one. Yet, he
wouldn't say what that scope is -- only that if Mueller wants to probe "something that's
outside that scope," he needs Rosenstein's "permission to expand his investigation." Pressed by
Wallace, Rosenstein was reduced to tautology: Mueller is not engaged in a "fishing expedition,"
you see, because "the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department
of Justice, and we don't engage in fishing expeditions." I see. This, er, explanation put me in
mind of a defense lawyer I once encountered while prosecuting a terrorism case. The defendant,
he explained, could not be a terrorist because the lawyer's firm did not represent terrorists.
Pretty compelling, no? Unfortunately, Wallace did not engage the DAG on the fundamental flaw in
his appointment of Mueller. Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials (presumably including
himself) are subject to "the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice." Yet, those
rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or
prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. The appropriate scope of the investigation
is not supposed to be something to which the DAG and the special counsel agree in
off-the-record conversations. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate
for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in
the first place. (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if
($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-container
.pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)").matches) {
if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'); } } else { if
($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'); } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){
swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); Don't take my word for it. The regulation, 28
CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is
"determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," and that the
Justice Department's handling of "that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter"
in the normal course "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" (emphasis
added). The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in
order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the
basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal
investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead,
appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with
a crime. It is specious to claim, as Rosenstein does, that his citation of the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is a sufficiently definite statement of the scope of the
investigation. As we have frequently pointed out, a counterintelligence investigation is not a
criminal investigation. There need be no suspicion of crime before a counterintelligence probe
is commenced. The purpose of the latter is to collect information about a foreign power, not to
investigate a suspected crime. As shown above, however, the need to probe a specific suspected
crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. The criminal
suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were not kept under wraps. Moreover, if citing the
Russia counterintelligence investigation were a sufficiently definite statement of Mueller's
"scope," Rosenstein and Mueller would not have had to agree on what the scope of the
investigation is -- as Rosenstein told Wallace they have done, privately. Which brings us (yet
again) to the regulation governing a special counsel's jurisdiction, 28 CFR 600.4. It states
that the Justice Department will provide the special counsel "with a specific factual statement
of the matter to be investigated." We know from the above-quoted reg (Sec. 600.1) that controls
special-counsel appointments that this "matter to be investigated" must involve a suspected
crime. Patently, the order by which Rosenstein appointed Mueller to conduct the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is not a specific factual statement of a transaction giving
rise to a suspected crime. Nor is Rosenstein relieved of the obligation to comply with the
regulation because Justice Department officials prefer not to talk about investigations
publicly. It bears remembering that we have arrived at this point largely because, on March 20,
2017, former FBI director James Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the investigation
into Russia's election-meddling. For good measure, Comey added that the investigation would
include scrutiny of Trump-campaign ties to, and coordination with, the Putin regime, as well as
an assessment of whether crimes were committed. Comey testified that he had been authorized by
the Justice Department to make this public announcement. How is it, then, that the Trump
Justice Department, against law-enforcement protocols, authorized that public discussion of the
investigation but now refuses to make disclosures regarding the investigation that are required
by regulation? The president is our government's most significant public official. An
investigation is corrosive of his capacity to carry out his responsibilities. It thus
compromises the public interest. We tolerate these debilitating challenges only if (a) there is
a good-faith basis to suspect the president may be guilty of criminal misconduct, (b) he is
made aware of what the basis for suspicion is so he can defend himself, and (c) the public is
informed so we can assess the jeopardy for ourselves. If a president is reasonably suspected of
a serious crime, he should by all means bear the burden of paralysis, and we should hold him
accountable -- whether that involves voting him out of, or otherwise seeking his removal from,
office. If he is not actually a criminal suspect, though, or if he is suspected of something
that is objectively trivial, he should not be under a cloud that gratuitously damages his
capacity to govern and our security. The criminal suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were
not kept under wraps. Nor were those that led to Iran-Contra, or the scandals involving
Whitewater/Lewinsky and Valerie Plame. In each instance, the president and the public
understood the basis for criminal investigation and prosecution; the government's capacity to
function was affected to a degree commensurate with the gravity of the allegations; and the
ability of special prosecutors to investigate was not compromised. Clarity about the
investigation, which is what the governing regulations call for, was in the public interest. To
suggest that invoking the Russia counterintelligence investigation gives Mueller a finite scope
from which he is unlikely to stray is to betray naïveté – or at least an
unfamiliarity with counterintelligence. The Russia counterintelligence probe is an
information-gathering inquiry into the Putin regime's election-meddling, premised on the
intelligence community's conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency. Therefore,
to take just one example, any suspected misconduct of Trump's that could theoretically be known
to Putin and usable for blackmail purposes would be relevant. Such suspected misconduct might
have utterly nothing to do with the 2016 election, yet it could be highly pertinent to a
counterintelligence probe of Putin's 2016 election-meddling. Understand: I am not saying there
has been any such misconduct. I have no way of knowing. I am merely pointing out that there is
no merit in the claim that, by invoking Russia's 2016 election-meddling and suspicions of
Trump-campaign collusion in it, Rosenstein has effectively limited Mueller's scope to Trump
dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 campaign. The regulations governing Mueller's
appointment as special counsel call for Rosenstein to specify the basis for a criminal
investigation, and thus limit Mueller to that specification. Rosenstein has not done that.
Despite the DAG's claims to the contrary, Mueller is thus free to conduct a fishing expedition.
Rosenstein has the authority to correct this error by superseding his statement of Mueller's
jurisdiction in a manner that complies with the regulations. For whatever reason, he has chosen
not to do that. READ MORE:Is Mueller's Grand Jury Impeachment Step One?Mueller's Grand Jury:
What It MeansTrump Has Himself, Not Sessions, to Blame for the Limitless Mueller Investigation
-- Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing
editor of National Review.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450230/rod-rosenstein-mueller-investigation-claims-its-limited-dont-stand
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
by Andrew C. McCarthy August 7, 2017 5:26 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy The scope of the
special counsel's investigation remains unlimited, despite the deputy attorney general's claim
that it's not a 'fishing expedition.' To what should be the surprise of no one, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein has tried to defend his conferral of boundless jurisdiction to special
counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump. But the conferral is
indefensible because Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement
of the basis for a criminal investigation. This failure is not cured by the DAG's stubborn
insistence that there really are limits to Mueller's jurisdiction . . . just not limits he can
talk about. Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, the DAG claimed that there is a
definite "scope of the investigation" because he and Mueller have agreed on one. Yet, he
wouldn't say what that scope is -- only that if Mueller wants to probe "something that's
outside that scope," he needs Rosenstein's "permission to expand his investigation." Pressed by
Wallace, Rosenstein was reduced to tautology: Mueller is not engaged in a "fishing expedition,"
you see, because "the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department
of Justice, and we don't engage in fishing expeditions." I see. This, er, explanation put me in
mind of a defense lawyer I once encountered while prosecuting a terrorism case. The defendant,
he explained, could not be a terrorist because the lawyer's firm did not represent terrorists.
Pretty compelling, no? Unfortunately, Wallace did not engage the DAG on the fundamental flaw in
his appointment of Mueller. Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials (presumably including
himself) are subject to "the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice." Yet, those
rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or
prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. The appropriate scope of the investigation
is not supposed to be something to which the DAG and the special counsel agree in
off-the-record conversations. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate
for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in
the first place. (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if
($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-container
.pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)").matches) {
if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'); } } else { if
($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'); } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){
swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); Don't take my word for it. The regulation, 28
CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is
"determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," and that the
Justice Department's handling of "that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter"
in the normal course "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" (emphasis
added). The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in
order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the
basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal
investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead,
appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with
a crime. It is specious to claim, as Rosenstein does, that his citation of the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is a sufficiently definite statement of the scope of the
investigation. As we have frequently pointed out, a counterintelligence investigation is not a
criminal investigation. There need be no suspicion of crime before a counterintelligence probe
is commenced. The purpose of the latter is to collect information about a foreign power, not to
investigate a suspected crime. As shown above, however, the need to probe a specific suspected
crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. The criminal
suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were not kept under wraps. Moreover, if citing the
Russia counterintelligence investigation were a sufficiently definite statement of Mueller's
"scope," Rosenstein and Mueller would not have had to agree on what the scope of the
investigation is -- as Rosenstein told Wallace they have done, privately. Which brings us (yet
again) to the regulation governing a special counsel's jurisdiction, 28 CFR 600.4. It states
that the Justice Department will provide the special counsel "with a specific factual statement
of the matter to be investigated." We know from the above-quoted reg (Sec. 600.1) that controls
special-counsel appointments that this "matter to be investigated" must involve a suspected
crime. Patently, the order by which Rosenstein appointed Mueller to conduct the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is not a specific factual statement of a transaction giving
rise to a suspected crime. Nor is Rosenstein relieved of the obligation to comply with the
regulation because Justice Department officials prefer not to talk about investigations
publicly. It bears remembering that we have arrived at this point largely because, on March 20,
2017, former FBI director James Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the investigation
into Russia's election-meddling. For good measure, Comey added that the investigation would
include scrutiny of Trump-campaign ties to, and coordination with, the Putin regime, as well as
an assessment of whether crimes were committed. Comey testified that he had been authorized by
the Justice Department to make this public announcement. How is it, then, that the Trump
Justice Department, against law-enforcement protocols, authorized that public discussion of the
investigation but now refuses to make disclosures regarding the investigation that are required
by regulation? The president is our government's most significant public official. An
investigation is corrosive of his capacity to carry out his responsibilities. It thus
compromises the public interest. We tolerate these debilitating challenges only if (a) there is
a good-faith basis to suspect the president may be guilty of criminal misconduct, (b) he is
made aware of what the basis for suspicion is so he can defend himself, and (c) the public is
informed so we can assess the jeopardy for ourselves. If a president is reasonably suspected of
a serious crime, he should by all means bear the burden of paralysis, and we should hold him
accountable -- whether that involves voting him out of, or otherwise seeking his removal from,
office. If he is not actually a criminal suspect, though, or if he is suspected of something
that is objectively trivial, he should not be under a cloud that gratuitously damages his
capacity to govern and our security. The criminal suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were
not kept under wraps. Nor were those that led to Iran-Contra, or the scandals involving
Whitewater/Lewinsky and Valerie Plame. In each instance, the president and the public
understood the basis for criminal investigation and prosecution; the government's capacity to
function was affected to a degree commensurate with the gravity of the allegations; and the
ability of special prosecutors to investigate was not compromised. Clarity about the
investigation, which is what the governing regulations call for, was in the public interest. To
suggest that invoking the Russia counterintelligence investigation gives Mueller a finite scope
from which he is unlikely to stray is to betray naïveté – or at least an
unfamiliarity with counterintelligence. The Russia counterintelligence probe is an
information-gathering inquiry into the Putin regime's election-meddling, premised on the
intelligence community's conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency. Therefore,
to take just one example, any suspected misconduct of Trump's that could theoretically be known
to Putin and usable for blackmail purposes would be relevant. Such suspected misconduct might
have utterly nothing to do with the 2016 election, yet it could be highly pertinent to a
counterintelligence probe of Putin's 2016 election-meddling. Understand: I am not saying there
has been any such misconduct. I have no way of knowing. I am merely pointing out that there is
no merit in the claim that, by invoking Russia's 2016 election-meddling and suspicions of
Trump-campaign collusion in it, Rosenstein has effectively limited Mueller's scope to Trump
dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 campaign. The regulations governing Mueller's
appointment as special counsel call for Rosenstein to specify the basis for a criminal
investigation, and thus limit Mueller to that specification. Rosenstein has not done that.
Despite the DAG's claims to the contrary, Mueller is thus free to conduct a fishing expedition.
Rosenstein has the authority to correct this error by superseding his statement of Mueller's
jurisdiction in a manner that complies with the regulations. For whatever reason, he has chosen
not to do that. READ MORE:Is Mueller's Grand Jury Impeachment Step One?Mueller's Grand Jury:
What It MeansTrump Has Himself, Not Sessions, to Blame for the Limitless Mueller Investigation
-- Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing
editor of National Review.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450230/rod-rosenstein-mueller-investigation-claims-its-limited-dont-stand
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
"... ' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers. ..."
"... The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism', the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers. ..."
"... Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns. ..."
"... The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite. ..."
"... The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists. ..."
"... In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters. ..."
Throughout the US and European corporate and state media, right and left, we are told that ' populism' has become
the overarching threat to democracy, freedom and . . . free markets. The media's ' anti-populism' campaign has been
used and abused by ruling elites and their academic and intellectual camp followers as the principal weapon to distract,
discredit and destroy the rising tide of mass discontent with ruling class-imposed austerity programs, the accelerating
concentration of wealth and the deepening inequalities.
We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ' populism' and its multiple usages. Then we will turn
to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements
and parties dubbed ' populist' by the ideologues of ' anti-populism' .
Conceptual Manipulation
In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ' anti-populism ' it is necessary to
examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.
Populism emerged during the 19 th and 20 th century as an ideology, movement and government in
opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian
struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing
monopolistic practices of the 'robber barons', the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access
to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.
In 19 th century Russia, the populists opposed the Tsar, the moneylenders and the burgeoning commercial
elites.
In early 20 th century India and China, populism took the form of nationalist agrarian movements seeking
to overthrow the imperial powers and their comprador collaborators.
In Latin America, from the 1930s onward, especially with the crises of export regimes, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia
and Peru, embraced a variety of populist, anti-imperialist governments. In Brazil, President Getulio Vargas's term (1951-1954)
was notable for the establishment of a national industrial program promoting the interests of urban industrial workers
despite banning independent working class trade unions and Marxist parties. In Argentina, President Juan Peron's first
terms (1946-1954) promoted large-scale working class organization, advanced social welfare programs and embraced nationalist
capitalist development.
In Bolivia, a worker-peasant revolution brought to power a nationalist party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement
(MNR), which nationalized the tin mines, expropriated the latifundios and promoted national development during its rule
from 1952-1964.
In Peru, under President Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), the government expropriated the coastal sugar plantations
and US oil fields and copper mines while promoting worker and agricultural cooperatives.
In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban
workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power.
What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters ('compradores'),
bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted 'third way' politics by opposing imperialism on the
right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation
of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported
state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.
Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism
as 'authoritarian' and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as 'a threat to Western Christian civilization'.
Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as 'fascists' . . . even as they won
numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.
The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today's ' anti-populists'
in the media are calling ' populism' . In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism
, a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class.
Both 'anti's' have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their 'pro-capitalist'
privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as 'pro-capitalist', pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state
subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ' anti-populist' .
' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist,
pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers
and pro-financial swindlers.
The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the
need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism',
the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary
jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.
Historic 'anti-populism' has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects
their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance
growing fiscal deficits.
The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism
What the current anti-populists ideologues label ' populism' has little to do with the historical movements.
Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements
and parties, denounced as 'populist' by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ' populists' attack
the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ' populists' support
imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.
Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations
with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning
popular multi-class movements and regimes.
Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics
of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.
One has only to compare the currently demonized ' populist' Donald Trump with the truly populist US President
Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution,
and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media
campaign has become.
The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact
opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health
insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.
The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland,
Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead
of bankers and militarists.
In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining
the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone,
austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class
voters.
The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the 'right' with the 'left'; to sidelight the latter and promote
the former; to amalgamate rightwing 'rallies' with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular
mass leaders.
Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the 'anti-populist' chorus. They have failed
to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate
populists in the name of 'anti-fascism'. Leftwing writers, claiming to 'combat the far-right enemies of the people'
, overlook the fact that they are 'fellow-travelling' with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts
in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees- not immigrants
–and concentrated immense wealth.
The bankruptcy of today's ' anti-populist' left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at
fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets!
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have
no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist
Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling
of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump
says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year
during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy
ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or
believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy
is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and
isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."
Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which
specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching
reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth
and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker,
Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great
that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."
Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the
garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump
just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which
the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.
The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual
reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just
our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent
that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its
ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.
Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his
family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!
You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left.
You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating
Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.
These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda
that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get
just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe
that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.
So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep
on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?
Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are
controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all
the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them
because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them.
If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK
murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.
This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem
when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have
our country back.
Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his
family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!
You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left.
You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating
Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.
These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda
that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get
just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe
that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.
So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep
on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?
Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are
controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all
the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them
because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them.
If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK
murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.
This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem
when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have
our country back.
"I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and
misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the
Trump Campaign and the Russian state," Stone writes in the opening statement he provided to The
Daily Caller.
WAIT! Didn't Debbie Washerwoman Shultz's long term, computer team from Pakistan just
get criminally charged with not only hacking over 30+ democrats in the House and possessing not
only the DNC files and all of Shultz files but also of selectively sending secure DNC and
congressional files to their own clandestine server, and then probably dispersing those files
to various foreign parties or the highest bidders?
WHEN THIS WAS UNCOVERED IN PART, THE
DEMOCRATS DESPERATELY COBBLED TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM A DOSSIER AND OTHER SOURCES AND ACCUSED
TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS! DUH!!!!!!!!!sm
Well as long as this guy 'believes' it then I guess there's no need for evidence. Go
forth, subservient minions and spread the fake news based on a Trump advisors 'feelings'.
Because there's no incentive for a Trump advisor to say something negative about Democrats so
by all means, spread it as if it were true and if ANYONE asks for evidence or says you're wrong
don't you DARE give them any kind of evidence, or talk to them like they have a valid request-
just get mad, freak out, call them a 'libtard'
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to
its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism –
smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing
any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope
that many commentators have long predicted.
The American government has now gone full blown McCarthy.
The fact that Russia hating, progressive left news channel, The Young Turks, has uncovered and published
this bombshell email should concern all Russian Americans that the witch-hunt against Russia may now be
extended to US citizens, residents, and tourists in the United States
no evidence needed except
profiling based on Russian heritage.
The Young Turks Network (TYT), a popular progressive YouTube channel and news site,
has
obtained a bombshell internal email
related to the Senate committee probing alleged Russian
interference in the American political system, and though currently being covered in Russian media,
mainstream US media is passing it over without comment.
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or
Russian descent" relevant to its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from
neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats
or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a
potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators
have long predicted.
Confident elite does not file such "amicus briefs". This is a sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Frightened
elite now was to stigmatize the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information." ..."
"... Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s." ..."
"... In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641 ..."
"... They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. ..."
"... Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'. ..."
"... Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training. ..."
In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former
deputy secretary of state William Burns; former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper;
and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech),
filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit.
The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence
in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived
as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or
confusion over sources of information."
The former officials portray the amicus brief as an offering of neutral ("Amici submit this brief on behalf of neither party")
expertise ("to offer the Court their broad perspective, informed by careers spent working inside the U.S. government").
The brief claims that Putin's Russia has not only "actively spread disinformation online in order to exploit racial, cultural
and political divisions across the country" but also "conducted cyber espionage operations to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic
process and, in the general election, influence the results against Secretary Hillary Clinton."
Much of this has been said before. But where the briefers branch off into new territory is in their attempt to characterize journalism
and political speech with which they disagree as acts of subversion on behalf of a foreign power.
According to the 14 former officials, Russia's active-measure campaign relies "on intermediaries or 'cut outs' inside a country,"
which are rather broadly defined as "political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies,
nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen."
Such "intermediaries" can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest,
to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced
to directly advance Russian operations and objectives."
In other words, a Russian "cut out" (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those "activists, academics, journalists, [or] web
operators" who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief.
In a recent essay for the London Review of Books, the historian Jackson Lears observed that "the religion of the Russian hack
depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords." And this
amicus brief is one such pronouncement.
In spite of the brief's high-flown language ("The threat posed to our democracy by Russian active measures campaigns is serious,
ongoing and will require vigilance on the part of the U.S. government and people"), it is little more than yet another effort to
stigmatize political speech that questions the necessity of demonizing Russia -- political speech, in other words, with which these
former high-ranking intelligence and national-security officials surely disagree.
Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation
of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
That is only too true; indeed, as of this writing, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative is fast devolving into an effort to stigmatize
and marginalize expressions of dissent, with the overarching aim of short-circuiting and stifling debate over US-Russia policy.
Knowledge is power, the truth will set you free. Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections":
The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
Not only no forgeries, which means the emails told the truth about what these morons were doing, but also it's been demonstrated
that the emails could only have been downloaded to a thumb drive because of the speeds they were transmitted. Why these fucking
dimwits keep overlooking that inconvenient truth is anyone's guess, likely because it doesn't dovetail with their scenario of
a Russian hack. This lawsuit goes nowhere but is being used to slowdown and divert attention away from the crimes of the DNC,
et al.
It burns me that Brennan and Clapper, those two fucking traitorous cunts, filed a brief supporting this bullshit. Those 2 assholes
were running the illegal spy operation against Trump during his campaign.
"In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including
former deputy secretary of state William Burns ; former CIA director John Brennan ; former director of national intelligence
James Clapper ; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably
includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit."
How revealing, the co-conspirators have filed an amicus brief ;-)
In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association".
It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea:
https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641
At the very minimum many high fliers who put on these Smith-Mundt hoaxes are going away for charity fraud. That's one reason
they're so desperate.
They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position
is in context. It's a bit like my wife when I tell her I'm not in the mood.. hehehehehe
"In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls
a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the
bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words,
'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'.
Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training.
They have violated their oaths of office and have conspired to over through the constitutionally elected President of the United
States. Instead of filing amicus brief they should be swinging from ropes.
Yeah true, but think of the Army of New Recruits/Converts if Trump had the foresight/Inclination to Drain that SWAMP . . .
. To have a modicum of credibility in my eyes he'd have to Deputize Deplorables to shoot these treasonous bastards in the face.
We see this thought pattern all over college and lower education now. People defending the right to censor and even criminalize
things they don't believe in and often enough these people have nice penalties for not bowing down to our betters...We've come
full circle back to King George the III and the American Revolution it seems..The founders had enough of this exact bullshit ...
All nonsense. The Russians wanted Hillary to win. She (and everybody else) was already bought and paid for after Uranium One.
John Brennan still needs to answer for Passport Gate and the murder of his employee, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., in 2008 two weeks
before he was to testify. Brennan hacked the State department and tampered Obama's passport and was rewarded with the first post-election
appointment. Before there was Seth Rich there was 24 year old, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.
Claptrap, Brennan . . . two warmongering Shadow Government Lackey's who should be in Orange Jumpsuits. 12 months on and NO
jail sentences. MoFo Puppet!
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
"... Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't surveilling the West. ..."
"... What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged. Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the mob war. ..."
"... As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well, but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Media and social media tycoons - all could be taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic. ..."
"... I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples. ..."
Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to
keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled
poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their
job if they weren't surveilling the West.
Victoria Nuland's EU rant was released. Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary
Clinton.
What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged.
Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch
hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the
upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the
mob war.
NemesisCalling , Dec 26, 2017 4:39:00 PM |
36karlof1 , Dec 26, 2017 4:42:57 PM |
37
Name of Me | Dec 26, 2017 12:13:28 PM | 2
The US Government was controlling media well before the CIA's creation. Please take a
little time to learn about George Seldes whose 1929 book You Can't
Print That!: The Truth Behind the News, 1918–1928 is vastly informative with
original copies easy to find under $15, or even online through this link . Indeed,
numerous works of his are digitized. I.F. Stone followed in Seldes's footsteps, and the
website with his collected writings is here . Perhaps one of the least known
episodes of US Government media manipulation was related to the atomic bomb crimes, an event
nearly 100% airbrushed from history books, and of course the ongoing attempt to cover up one
of the biggest crimes of all time.
My mention of media manipulation by the US Government wouldn't be complete without
including the 100% blackout that was to apply to the discussions in Philadelphia that led to
the 1787 Constitution -- the document that elevated the "natural aristocracy" into the
catbird seat ensuring their control of the federal government until it's overthrown via
revolution.
Fortunately, Madison and others kept copious notes that were eventually published long
after the fate of Commoners was sealed, so we know that Aristocracy viewed its contemporary
deplorables no differently than how HRC and today's 1% view them/us.
Americans and much of the rest of the world are the target of an immense psyop . Propaganda
techniques going back to Bernay and WWI have been expanded on and perfected. Infiltration and
control is lot limited to the print media and TV news stations but also , hollywood movies/TV
shows , academia (history, economics, etc) , book publishing, blogs and social media. The
last few bastions of truth will be eliminated with the end of net neutrality.
As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well,
but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission
Accomplished.
"We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to
let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in
foreign countries. One hand will wash the other."
Something I have often thought about. Media and social media tycoons - all could be
taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work
with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic.
I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples.
Hunt's Deathbed Confession
Reveals JFK Killers
The Last Confession Of E. Howard Hunt -
US government/CIA team murdered JFK
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor
4-4-7
The April 5 issue of Rolling Stone features the deathbed confession of CIA operative and key Bay of Pigs/Watergate/Nixon administration
figure E. Howard Hunt,
The Last Confession
of E. Howard Hunt by Erik Hedegaard. This piece is significant not only for its exploration of Hunt, but for breakthrough information
that appears to thoroughly corroborate the work of key John F. Kennedy assassination researchers and historians.
Who killed JFK?
According to Hunt's confession, which was taken by his son, St. John ("Saint") Hunt, over the course of many personal and carefully
planned father-son meetings, the following individuals were among the key participants:
Lyndon B. Johnson: LBJ, whose own career was assisted by JFK nemesis J. Edgar Hoover (FBI), gave the orders to a CIA-led hit team,
and helped guide the Warren Commission/lone gunman cover-up.
Cord Meyer: CIA agent, architect of the Operation Mockingbird disinformation apparatus, and husband of Mary Meyer (who had an
affair with JFK).
David Atlee Philips: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Recruited William Harvey (CIA) and Cuban exile militant Antonio Veciana.
William Harvey: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Connected to Mafia figures Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.
Antonio Veciana: Cuban exile, founder of CIA-backed Alpha 66.
Frank Sturgis: CIA operative, mercenary, Bay of Pigs veteran, and later Watergate figure.
David Morales: CIA hit man, Bay of Pigs veteran. Morales was also a figure involved with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.
Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and drug trafficker, possible "French gunman," Grassy Knoll (second) shooter.
Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps. Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps
deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement
of certain individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive? Certainly. Anything from an operative like
Hunt can only be accepted with caution and healthy skepticism.
Nevertheless, Hunt's scenario has the ring of truth.
Each of the named names are well-known CIA and CIA-linked players exposed by many researchers and historians who have detailed
the enduring connection from the Bay of Pigs and the Dallas hit to Watergate and Iran-Contra.
The Hunt confession vindicates generations of historians, researchers and whistleblowers who have given their lives and careers
to expose the truth about Dealey Plaza. While there are too many to name, they include, but are not limited to (and in no particular
order): Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, Josiah Thompson, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Summers, Robert Groden,
Victor Marchetti, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone, Michael Canfield, A.J. Weberman, Sylvia Meagher, William Turner, Jim Marrs,
Pete Brewton, John Newman, Philip Melanson, Hal Verb, Mae Brussell, Harold Weisberg, Oliver Stone, Mike Ruppert and Dan Hopsicker,
Jim diEugenio and Linda Pease.
Meanwhile, the criminal deceptions of the US government and its corporate media, the Warren Commission, and the dirty work of
cover-up specialists such as Gerald Posner and Mark Fuhrman, and the legions of JFK assassination revisionist/theorists, deserve
a final rebuke, and eternal scorn.
Highlighting Hunt's role
Although the Rolling Stone piece does not address it, the Hunt confession directly corroborates two classic investigations that
previously exposed the role of Hunt. They are Mark Lane's Plausible Denial and Michael Canfield/A.J. Weberman's Coup D'Etat in America.
Lane's book details how he took Hunt to court, and won a libel suit, essentially proving that the CIA murdered JFK, and that Hunt
lied about his whereabouts. The investigation of Canfield and Weberman identified Hunt and Frank Sturgis as two of the three "tramps"
arrested at Dealey Plaza.
Time has only made these investigations more relevant. More than ever, their books, and those of the JFK historians and researchers
above listed, deserve to be found, read and studied.
Hunt to Nixon to Bush
The Rolling Stone piece fails to go after the roles of Richard Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush. But the Hunt confession,
if accurate, leads directly to them, to their lifelong associates, and all the way to the present George W. Bush administration.
The Dallas-Watergate-Iran-Contra connection has been thoroughly documented by the key JFK researchers, and in particular, in the
work of Peter Dale Scott, one of the very first to show the deep political continuity across three decades. Daniel Hopsicker's Barry
and the Boys goes into even more detail on the players.
Consider the career of George H.W. Bush. He was a Texas oilman (Zapata Oil) and a CIA operative, involved with the Bay of Pigs.
Bush's name was found in the papers of George DeMohrenschildt, one of Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA handlers. As documented by Pete Brewton,
author of The Mafia, the CIA and George Bush, Bush was deeply connected with a small circle of Texas elites tied to the CIA and the
Mafia, as well as the Florida-based CIA/anti-Casto Cuban exile/ Mafia milieu As Richard Nixon's hand-picked Republican National Committee
chairman, and later as CIA director, Bush constantly covered-up and stonewalled for his boss about Watergate, which itself (by the
admission of Frank Sturgis and others) was a cover-up of the JFK assassination.
Tracking any of the individual CIA operatives involved with the Bay of Pigs, it is impossible to ignore or deny direct connections
to George H.W. Bush and his crime family, across the Kennedy assassinations, covert operations in Indochina and, later, Latin America.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, the US government murdered John F. Kennedy. There are people still alive today who were involved
directly and indirectly implicated. Some are probably even serving in positions of high influence. Some still have never been identified
or touched.
All of these individuals still need to be pursued, exposed, and brought to justice.
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
The Watergate Break-In
June 16, 1972: In room 214 of the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., seven men gathered to
finalize their plans to break in to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters,
located on the sixth floor of one of the Watergate complex's six buildings. One of these men,
G. Gordon Liddy , was a former FBI agent. Another, E. Howard Hunt , had retired from the CIA.
James McCord would handle the bugging, Bernard Barker would photograph documents, and Virgilio
Gonzalez would pick the locks. The remaining two, Eugenio Martinez and Frank Sturgis, would
serve as lookouts. Several of these men were Cuban exiles who had met Hunt through their
participation in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion back in 1961.
"... . . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . . 30 ..."
During his later years at the CIA, Helms witnessed the Agency and the whole enterprise of
intelligence fall into disrepute as Congress and the public subjected US foreign policy to
unprecedented criticism. Helms took the occasion of his only public speech as DCI to affirm
that "the nation must to a degree take it on faith that we too are honorable men devoted to her
service."
28 By the end of his directorship, however, years of political protest, social
upheaval, and revelations of government incompetence and wrongdoing had depleted much of that
faith. Helms became a (not entirely blameless) casualty of that rapid and sweeping change in
the American people's sense of what their government should and should not do. He had once said
that Americans "want an effective, strong intelligence operation. They just don't want to hear
too much about it."
29 But now prominent voices demanded of the CIA far more accountability than Helms
was used to or thought appropriate. As he wrote in this journal in 1967:
. . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public
critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite
another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it
painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on
our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . .
30
Helms declined a presidential request to submit his resignation after the 1972 elections,
not wanting to set a precedent that he thought would politicize the position of DCI. After he
was forced out in 1973 -- he believed that Nixon was mad at him for refusing to use the CIA in
the Watergate cover up -- Helms spent several years coping with controversies ensuing in part
from some of his acts of omission and commission while at the Agency. He became a lightning rod
for criticism of the CIA during its "time of troubles" in the mid-1970s. He was called back
many times from his ambassadorial post in Tehran to testify before investigatory bodies about
assassination plots, domestic operations, drug testing, the destruction of records, and other
activities of dubious legality and ethicality known collectively as the "Family Jewels." He
responded to inquiries about them cautiously, sometimes testily, as he tried to walk the
increasingly fuzzy line between discretion and disclosure.
Helms ran into legal troubles resulting from his judgment about when and when not to reveal
secrets. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just after leaving the
Agency, he denied that the CIA had tried to influence the outcome of the Chilean presidential
election in 1970. Helms described his quandary this way: "If I was to live up to my oath and
fulfill my statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure, I could not reveal covert operations to people unauthorized to learn
about them."
31 He eventually pleaded no contest to charges of not testifying "fully, completely
and accurately" to the committee. His statement to the federal judge who was about to sentence
him, although addressed to the immediate situation, could also summarize nearly his whole
experience as DCI: "I was simply trying to find my way through a difficult situation in which I
found myself
Notes: (1) Although these excerpts do not contain footnotes, the book itself is heavily
footnoted and exhaustively sourced. (2) To distinguish between George Bush, father and son,
George H.W. Bush is sometimes referred to by his nickname Poppy, and George W. Bush by his, W.
(3) Additional context can be found in the preceding chapters.
Before you read this second installment, please go
here to read the first installment.
***********
Family of Secrets
Chapter 10: Downing Nixon: The Setup
Who Will Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest? ascribed to Henry II
On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance
equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National
Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington,
D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as
having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into
one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon
forever, and drive him out of the White House.
Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the
Watergate burglary -- or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people
believe Nixon got what he deserved.
But like other epic events, Watergate turns out to be an entirely different
story than the one we thought we knew.
Hanky-Panky, Cuban-Style
Almost no one has better expressed reasons to doubt Nixon's involvement
than Nixon himself. In his memoirs, Nixon described how he learned about
the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper. He
recalled his reaction at the time:
It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank . . . The whole thing made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a blundering way . . . Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of a setup.
Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm
him.
Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-
serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.
Notwithstanding Nixon's initial reaction to the news of the break-in,
less than a week later he suddenly learned more -- and this gave him much
to ponder.
On June 23, Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. "Bob" Haldeman, came into the
Oval Office to give the president an update on a variety of topics, including
the investigation of the break-in. Haldeman had just been briefed by John
Dean, who had gotten his information from FBI investigators.
HALDEMAN: . . . The FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that's what it is. This is CIA .
Nixon's response would show that he had already realized this:
NIXON: Of course, this is a, this is a [E. Howard] Hunt [operation, and exposure of it] will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves This will open the whole Bay of Pigs thing
Of course, it is important to remember that Nixon knew every word he
uttered was being recorded. Like his predecessors Kennedy and Johnson,
he had decided to install a taping system so that he could maintain a record
of his administration. He was, in a way, dictating a file memo for future historians.
But that doesn't make everything he said untrue. While Nixon undoubtedly
spun some things, he still had to communicate with his subordinates,
and the tape was rolling while he was trying to run the country. Those were
actual meetings and real conversations, tape or no tape. And though the
result was 3,700 hours of White House tape recordings, Nixon evinced
merely sporadic consciousness of the fact that the tape was rolling. Only after
his counsel John Dean defected to the prosecutors did Nixon appear to
be tailoring his words.
Nixon's memoirs, combined with the tape of June 23, make clear that
Nixon recognized certain things about the implementation of the burglary.
The caper was carried out by pros, yet paradoxically was amateurish, easily
detected -- an instigation of the crime more easily pinned on someone else.
A break-in at Democratic Party headquarters: On whom would that be
blamed? Well, who was running against a Democrat for reelection that
fall? Why, Richard Nixon of course. Nixon, who frequently exhibited a grim
and self-pitying awareness of how he generally was portrayed, might have
grasped how this would play out publicly. Dick Nixon: ruthless, paranoid,
vengeful -- Tricky Dick. Wouldn't this burglary be just the kind of thing that
that Dick Nixon -- the "liberal media's" version of him -- would do? Nixon's
opponent, George McGovern, made this charge repeatedly during the 1972
campaign.
Though Nixon would sweep the election, it would become increasingly
apparent to him that, where Watergate was concerned, the jury was stacked.
The path was set. Someone had him in a corner.
But who?
Many people, including those within Nixon's own base of support, were
not happy with him -- even from early in his administration. As Haldeman
noted in his diary, one month after the inauguration in 1969:
Also got cranking on the political problem. [President's] obviously concerned about reports (especially Buchanan's) that conservatives and the South are unhappy. Also he's annoyed by constant right- wing bitching, with never a positive alternative. Ordered me to assemble a political group and really hit them to start defending us, including Buchanan . . . [and political specialist Harry] Dent.
There would be growing anger in the Pentagon about Nixon and Kissinger's
secret attempts to secure agreements with China and the Soviet Union without
consulting the military. And there were the oilmen, who found Nixon
wasn't solid enough on their most basic concerns, such as the oil depletion
allowance and oil import quotas.
As for the burglary crew, Nixon recognized them instantly, because he
knew what they represented. While serving as vice president, Nixon had
overseen some covert operations and served as the "action officer" for the
planning of the Bay of Pigs, of which these men were hard-boiled veterans.
They had been out to overthrow Fidel Castro, and if possible, to kill him.
Nixon had another problem. These pros were connected to the CIA, and
as we shall see, Nixon was not getting along well with the agency.
One of the main reasons we fundamentally misunderstand Watergate is
that the guardians of the historical record focused only on selected parts of
Nixon's taped conversations, out of context. Consider a widely cited portion
of a June 23 meeting tape, which would become known forever as the
"smoking gun" conversation:
HALDEMAN: The way to handle this now is for us to have [CIA deputy director Vernon] Walters call [FBI interim director] Pat Gray and just say, "Stay the hell out of this this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it." NIXON: Um hum.
Short excerpts like this seem especially damning. This one sounds right
off the bat like a cover-up - Nixon using the CIA to suppress an FBI investigation
into the break-in.
But these utterances take on a different meaning when considered with
other, less publicized parts of the same conversation. A prime example:
Haldeman went on to tell Nixon that Pat Gray, the acting FBI director, had
called CIA director Richard Helms and said, "I think we've run right into
the middle of a CIA covert operation."
Although the first excerpt above sounds like a discussion of a cover-up,
when we consider the information about the CIA involvement, it begins to
seem as if Nixon is not colluding. He may well have been refusing to take the
rap for something he had not authorized -- and certainly not for something
that smelled so blatantly like a trap. Nixon would have understood that if the
FBI were to conduct a full investigation and conclude that the break-in was indeed
an illegal operation of the CIA, it would all be blamed squarely on the
man who supposedly had ultimate authority over both agencies -- him. And
doubly so, since the burglars and their supervisors were tied not just
to the CIA but also directly back to Nixon's reelection committee and the
White House itself.
Yet, however concerned Nixon certainly must have been at this moment,
he played it cool. He concurred with the advice that his chief of staff was
passing along from the counsel John Dean, which was to press the CIA to
clean up its own mess.
If the CIA was involved, then the agency would have to ask the FBI to
back off. The CIA itself would have to invoke its perennial escape clause --
say that national security was at stake.
This must have sounded to Nixon like the best way to deal with a vexing
and shadowy situation. He had no way of knowing that, two years later, his
conversation with Haldeman would be publicly revealed and construed as
that of a man in control of a plot, rather than the target of one.
Sniffing Around the Bay of Pigs
How could Nixon have so quickly gotten a fix on the Watergate crew? He
might have recognized that the involvement of this particular group of
Cubans, together with E. Howard Hunt -- and the evidence tying them back
to the White House -- was in part a message to him. One of the group leaders,
G. Gordon Liddy, would even refer to the team as a bunch of "professional
killers." Indeed
, several of this Bay of Pigs circle had gone to Vietnam
to participate in the assassination-oriented Phoenix Program; as noted in
chapter 7, Poppy Bush and his colleague, CIA operative Thomas Devine,
had been in Vietnam at the peak of Phoenix, and Bush had ties to at least
some from this émigré group.
So Nixon recognized this tough gang, but this time, they weren't focused on
Fidel Castro; they were focused on Dick Nixon.
Hunt was a familiar figure from the CIA old guard. A near contemporary of
Poppy Bush's at Yale , Hunt had, as noted in earlier
chapters, gone on to star in
numerous agency foreign coup operations, including in Guatemala. He had
worked closely with Cuban émigrés and had been in sensitive positions at the
time John F. Kennedy was murdered and Lee Harvey Oswald named the lone
assassin. Moreover, Hunt had been a staunch loyalist of Allen Dulles, whom
Kennedy had ousted over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion; he allegedly even
collaborated on Dulles's 1963 book, The Craft of Intelligence. Hunt was one
connected fellow, and his presence in an operation of this sort, particularly with
veterans of the Cuba invasion, was not something to pass over lightly.
Nixon had further basis for viewing the events of Watergate with special
trepidation. From the moment he entered office until the day, five and a half
years later, when he was forced to resign, Nixon and the CIA had been at
war. Over what? Over records dating back to the Kennedy administration
and even earlier.
Nixon had many reasons to be interested in the events of the early 1960s.
As noted, he had been the "action officer" for the planning of the Bay of Pigs
and the attempt to overthrow Castro. But even more interestingly, Nixon had,
by coincidence, been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and had left the city
just hours before the man he barely lost to in 1960 had been gunned down.
Five years after the Kennedy assassination, as Richard Nixon himself assumed
the presidency, one of his first and keenest instincts was to try to learn more
about these monumental events of the past decade.
Both of Nixon's chief aides, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, noted
in their memoirs that the president seemed obsessed with what he called
the "Bay of Pigs thing." Both were convinced that when Nixon used the
phrase, it was shorthand for something bigger and more disturbing. Nixon
did not tell even those closest to him what he meant.
When Nixon referred to the Bay of Pigs, he could certainly have been using
it as a euphemism, because any way one thought about it, it spelled
trouble. The Bay of Pigs invasion itself had been a kind of setup of another
president. JFK had made clear that he would not allow U.S. military forces
to be used against Castro. When the invasion by U.S.-backed Cuban exiles
failed, the CIA and the U.S. military hoped this would force Kennedy to
launch an all-out invasion. Instead, he balked, and blamed Dulles and his
associates for the botched enterprise, and, to their astonishment, forced
them out of the agency. As noted in chapter 4, these were the roots of the hatred
felt by Hunt, Dulles, and the Bush family toward Kennedy.
Nixon was keenly aware that Kennedy's battle with powerful internal elements
had preceded JFK's demise. After all, governments everywhere have
historically faced the reality that the apparatus of state security might have
the chief of state in its gun sights -- and that it certainly possesses the ability
to act.
Moreover, Richard Nixon was a curious fellow. Within days of taking
office in 1969, Nixon had begun conducting an investigation of his own regarding
the turbulent and little-understood days leading up to the end of the
Kennedy administration. He had ordered Ehrlichman, the White House
counsel, to instruct CIA director Helms to hand over the relevant files, which
surely amounted to thousands and thousands of documents. Six months
later, Ehrlichman confided to Haldeman that the agency had failed to produce
any of the files.
"Those bastards in Langley are holding back something," a frustrated
Ehrlichman told Haldeman. "They just dig their heels in and say the President
can't have it. Period. Imagine that. The Commander-in-Chief wants to
see a document and the spooks say he can't have it . . . From the way they're
protecting it, it must be pure dynamite."
Nixon himself then summoned Helms, who also refused to help. Helms
would later recall that Nixon "asked me for some information about the Bay
of Pigs and I think about the Diem episode in Vietnam and maybe something
about Trujillo in the Dominican Republic" -- all events involving the
violent removal of foreign heads of state.
Fidel Castro had managed to survive not only the Bay of Pigs but also multiple
later assassination attempts. Diem and Trujillo were not so fortunate.
And President Kennedy, who made a lot of Cuban enemies after the botched
Bay of Pigs operations, had also succumbed to an assassin's bullet. This was a
legacy that might well seize the attention of one of Kennedy's successors.
The explosiveness of the mysterious "Bay of Pigs thing" became abundantly
apparent on June 23, 1972, the day Nixon instructed Haldeman to tell
CIA director Helms to rein in the FBI's Watergate investigation. Recalled
Haldeman:
Then I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs might be blown . . ."
Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair, leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." . . . I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?
Nixon made clear to his top aides that he was not only obsessed with the
CIA's murky past, but also its present. He seemed downright paranoid about
the agency, periodically suggesting to his aides that covert operatives lurked
everywhere. And indeed, as we shall see, they did.
In all likelihood, the practice of filling the White House with intelligence
operatives was not limited to the Nixon administration, but an ongoing effort.
To the intelligence community, the White House was no different than
other civil institutions it actively penetrated. Presidents were viewed less as
elected leaders to be served than as temporary occupants to be closely monitored,
subtly guided, and where necessary, given a shove.
If the CIA was in fact trying to implicate Nixon in Watergate (and, as we
shall see, in other illegal and troubling covert operations), the goal might
have been to create the impression that the agency was joined at the hip
with Nixon in all things. Then, if Nixon were to pursue the CIA's possible
role in the assassination of Kennedy, the agency could simply claim that
Nixon himself knew about these illegal acts, or was somehow complicit in
them.
A Little Exposure Never Hurts
Something had been gnawing at Nixon since November 22, 1963. Why had
he ended up in Dallas the very day the man who he believed had stolen the
presidency from him was shot? Nixon had been asked to go there just a few
weeks before, for the rather banal purpose of an appearance at a Pepsi-Cola
corporate meeting -- coinciding with a national soda pop bottlers' convention.
The potential implications could not have been lost on this most shrewd and
suspicious man.
Nixon was no shrinking violet in Dallas. He called a press conference in
his hotel suite on November 21, the day before Kennedy's murder, criticizing
Kennedy's policies on civil rights and foreign relations but also urging
Texans to show courtesy to the president during his visit.
More significantly, he declared his belief that Kennedy was going to replace
Vice President Johnson with a new running mate in 1964. This was
an especially incendiary thing to say, since the whole reason for Kennedy's
visit was to cement his links to Texas Democrats, help bridge a gap between
the populist and conservative wings of the state party, and highlight his partnership
with Johnson. Nixon's comment was hot enough that it gained a place in the
early edition of the November 22 Dallas Morning News, under the headline
"Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson."
This was likely to get the attention of Johnson, who would be in the motorcade
that day -- and of conservatives generally, the bottlers included, whom Johnson
had addressed as keynote speaker at their convention earlier in the week.
Nixon had finished his business and left the city by 9:05 on the morning
of the twenty-second, several hours before Kennedy was shot. He learned
of the event on his arrival back in New York City. Like most people, he no
doubt was shocked and perhaps a bit alarmed. Many people, Nixon included,
believed that Kennedy had stolen the presidential election in 1960 by fixing
vote counts in Texas and Illinois.
At the very least, the appearance of Nixon's November 21 press conference
remarks in the newspaper just hours before Kennedy's death was a
stark reminder of the large and diverse group of enemies, in and out of politics,
that JFK had accumulated.
Certainly, Nixon himself was sensitive to the notion that his appearance
in Dallas had somehow contributed to Kennedy's bloody fate. According to
one account, Nixon learned of the assassination while in a taxi cab en route
from the airport. He claimed at the time and in his memoirs that he was
calm, but his adviser Stephen Hess remembered it differently. Hess was
the
first person in Nixon's circle to see him that day in New York, and he recalled
that "his reaction appeared to me to be, 'There but for the Grace of
God go I.' He was very shaken."
As Hess later told political reporter Jules Witcover: "He had the morning
paper, which he made a great effort to show me, reporting he had held a
press conference in Dallas and made a statement that you can disagree with
a person without being discourteous to him or interfering with him. He
tried to make the point that he had tried to prevent it . . . It was his way of
saying, 'Look, I didn't fuel this thing.' "
Nixon's presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963, along with LBJ's --
and Poppy Bush's quieter presence on the periphery -- created a rather remarkable
situation. Three future presidents of the United States were all present in a
single American city on the day when their predecessor was assassinated
there. Within days, a fourth -- Gerald Ford -- would be asked by LBJ to join
the Warren Commission investigating the event.
Bottled Up
Nixon's unfortunate timing resulted from a series of events that seem, in retrospect,
almost to have benefited from a guiding hand. In mid-1963, friends
had persuaded him that his long-term prospects required a move from California,
where he had lost the 1962 race for the governorship. Now that he
was a two-time loser, Nixon's best hope, they counseled, was to find a position
in New York that would pay him handsomely, and let him politick and
keep himself in the public eye. His friend Donald Kendall, the longtime head
of Pepsi's international operations, offered to make him chairman of the
international division. But the consensus was that a law firm job would suit
him better, so he joined the firm of Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd.
Kendall sweetened the deal by throwing the law firm Pepsi's lucrative legal
business. In September, Kendall himself was promoted to head the entire
Pepsi company.
On November 1, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, a corrupt
anti-Communist, was overthrown and assassinated. On November 7, Nixon
wrote to GOP strategist Robert Humphreys, expressing outrage over Diem's
death and blaming the Kennedy administration. "Our heavy-handed complicity
in his murder can only have the effect of striking terror in the hearts
of leaders of other nations who presumably are our friends."
Historians disagree on what exactly Kennedy knew about Diem's death,
though Kennedy registered shock at the news -- just as he had when Patrice
Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader, was assassinated in 1961.
Kennedy realized that he could be blamed. Later on, it would be established
by the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA had been attempting to
kill Lumumba.
Also of interest is a little-noticed comment made by President Lyndon
Johnson in 1966, caught by his own recording equipment, in which he
declared about Diem: "We killed him. We all got together and got a god-
damn bunch of thugs and assassinated him." It is not clear whom he
meant by "we."
Kendall asked Nixon to accompany him to Dallas for the Pepsi corporate
gathering coinciding with the bottlers' convention in late November. The
convention was an important annual event for Pepsi, and so would have
been on Kendall's schedule for a while, though the necessity of Nixon's
presence is less apparent. And with LBJ as keynote speaker, and appearances
by Miss USA, Yogi Berra, and Joan Crawford, Nixon, the two-time loser, did
not even appear at the convention.
For his part, Nixon seems to have agreed to go because it was an opportunity
to share the limelight surrounding Kennedy's visit. And since Nixon was
traveling as a representative of Pepsi, and flying on its corporate plane --
something noted in the news coverage -- Kendall was getting double duty out
of Nixon's play for media attention. That was something Kendall understood
well.
Donald Kendall was, like Nixon and Poppy Bush, a World War II Navy
vet who had served in the Pacific. But instead of politics, he had gone into
the business world, joining the Pepsi- Cola company and rising quickly
through the ranks. Like Nixon and Bush, he was enormously ambitious.
And in his oversight of Pepsi operations abroad, he also shared something
else with them: a deep concern about Communist encroachment -- which
was just about everywhere. Plus Kendall had a passion for covert operations.
Kendall's particular reason for being interested in Cuba was sugar, for
many years a key ingredient of Pepsi-Cola. Cuba was the world's leading
supplier; and Castro's expropriations, and the resulting U.S. embargo, had
caused chaos in the soft drink industry. (It also had affected the fortunes of
Wall Street firms such as Brown Brothers Harriman, which, as noted in
chapter 3, had extensive sugar holdings on the island.)
Indeed, articles from the Dallas papers anticipating the bottlers' convention
talked openly about all these problems with Cuba. One of the articles, titled
"Little Relief Seen for Sugar Problem," explains the pressure
felt by soft drink
bottlers in light of a crisis concerning high sugar prices. The president of a major
New York-based sugar company is quoted explaining why the crisis had
not yet been averted: "The government probably thought the Castro regime
might be eliminated."
It is in this context that we consider a June 1963 letter from Nixon to
Kendall, then still running Pepsi's foreign operations. A researcher working
for me found it in Nixon's presidential library archives; it appears to be previously
unpublished.
Dear Don: In view of our discussion yesterday morning with regard to Cuba, I thought you might like to see a copy of the speech I made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in which I directed remarks toward this problem. When I return from Europe I am looking forward to having a chance to get a further fill-in with regard to your experiences on the Bay of Pigs incident.
Dick
The letter rings a little odd. Nixon and Kendall were close, and more than
two years had passed since the Bay of Pigs; it was unlikely that this would be
the first chance Nixon got to discuss the subject with his friend. Furthermore,
Kendall is not known to have had any "experiences" in relation to the invasion.
In a 2008 interview, Kendall, by then eighty-seven years old but still maintaining
an office at Pepsi and seeming vigorous, said that he could not recall the letter
nor provide an explanation for it.
Given this, the use of the phrase in the letter appears to be some form of
euphemism between friends, a sort of discreet wink. Nixon, the former
coordinator of covert operations under Ike, clearly knew that Kendall was
more than a soda pop man. Nixon's experiences representing Pepsi instilled
in him a lasting -- and not altogether favorable -- impression of what he
acidly termed "the sugar lobby." Haldeman got the message that treading
carefully was wise. Some of his notes are intriguing in this respect. He
urges special counsel Charles Colson:
0900 Cols[on] -- re idea of getting pol. Commitments -- Sugar people are richest & most ruthless before we commit -- shld put screws on & get quid pro quo ie Fl[anigan] -- always go to Sugar lobby or oil etc. before we give them anything
The CIA also knew the soft drink industry well. The agency used bottling
plants, including those run by Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and other companies, for
both cover and intelligence. Moreover, the local bottling franchises tended
to be given to crucial figures in each country, with ties to the military and
the ruling elites. It was not just bottlers that played such a role; there were
marketing monopolies for all kinds of products, from cars to sewing machines,
given out on recommendations of the CIA.
Kendall was a close friend of the Bush family and a fellow resident of
Greenwich, Connecticut. In 1988, he would serve in the crucial position of
finance chairman for Poppy Bush's successful run for the presidency. His
support for the Bushes included donating to George W. Bush's 1978 Midland
congressional campaign.
And as noted by the New York Times , Kendall was
identified with the successful
effort to overthrow the elected democratic socialist president of Chile, Salvador
Allende.
As the Times would report in July 1976:
One of Mr. Kendall's great passions is international trade, and his interest in foreign affairs won him a footnote in a 1975 interim report of a Senate Select Committee. The report was called "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders," and discussed in part the assassination of Salvador Allende Gossens, the Marxist Chilean president who was killed in 1973. The report stated that Mr. Kendall had requested in 1970 that Augustin Edwards, who was publisher of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, as well as a Pepsi bottler in Chile, meet with high Nixon Administration officials to report on the political situation in Chile. (Pepsi bottling operations were later expropriated by the regime.) That meeting, which included Mr. Kendall, Mr. Edwards, Henry Kissinger and John N. Mitchell, was indeed held, and later the same day, Mr. Nixon met with Dr. Kissinger and Richard Helms, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Helms later testified that President Nixon had ordered at the follow-up meeting that Chile was to be saved from Allende "and he didn't care much how." Mr. Kendall says he sees nothing sinister, or for that matter even controversial, in his action.
Like many on the right, quite a few bottlers regarded the Kennedy administration's
policy toward Castro's Cuba as dangerously soft. Declassified FBI
files show that, after Kennedy's death, one man contacted the FBI regarding
threatening remarks that his brother, a bottler, had made in reference to the
president. Another convention attendee was identified in FBI reports as
having had a drink with Jack Ruby, the assassin of Lee Harvey Oswald, on
the night of November 21.
Though unhappy with Kennedy, these independent businessmen clearly
wanted to hear what Johnson had to say, which is why the Texas-born vice
president was the convention's keynote speaker.
By some estimates, the convention included close to eight thousand
bottlers -- so many, in fact, that it had taken over Dallas's largest venue, the
new Market Hall. This meant that when Kennedy's trip planners determined
where he would speak on November 22, one of the very few sufficiently large
and central venues had long since been taken. The Dallas Trade Mart thereby
became the most likely location for Kennedy's speech, with the route through
downtown to the Trade Mart, past the Texas School Book Depository, as the
most likely for the presidential motorcade.
In fact, the Trade Mart was secured by that most unlikely group of "friends"
of JFK, the Dallas Citizens Council, whose members' views were described by
the New York Times as "very conservative and range rightward." The council
had cosponsored the luncheon as a putative peace offering to JFK. Indeed, it
seems that JFK's itinerary in Dallas was circumscribed by the bottlers and the
Citizens Council.
The mere fact that eight thousand strangers had poured into Dallas in
the days before JFK's arrival should presumably have been of interest, yet
the Warren Commission ignored the event altogether.
Another interesting thing about the bottlers' convention is that the Army
Reserves volunteered to help facilitate an unusual extracurricular activity.
As noted in chapters 6 and 7, Poppy Bush's friend Jack Crichton was head of
a local Army Intelligence unit. Associates of Crichton's who were involved
with the Army Reserves had managed to get into the pilot car of Kennedy's
procession, with one as the driver. Crichton would also provide the interpreter
for Marina Oswald after her husband's arrest as the prime suspect in
Kennedy's murder.
According to a short item in the Dallas Morning News the day before
Kennedy was shot, members of the Dallas unit of the 90th Artillery Division
of the Army Reserve would be providing trucks and drivers to transport two
hundred orphans to a livestock arena for a rodeo sponsored by the bottlers'
group. This was to take place at nine P.M. on the night before Kennedy's arrival.
The arena was at Fair Park, near the site under which Crichton's Dallas
Civil Defense maintained its underground emergency bunker and communications
facility. Putting aside the Dickensian aspect of moving orphans in
Army trucks within an affluent American city, this raises some questions
about the reason for this odd maneuver. Whatever the true purpose of a small
platoon of Army vehicles being permitted to move about Dallas on purportedly
unrelated civilian business as the president's arrival was imminent, it appears
investigators never considered this incident worthy of a closer look.
Cumulatively, the bottlers' convention was responsible for a number of
curious circumstances that may be said to have some relevance to the
events surrounding Kennedy's death:
• The convention brought Nixon to Dallas.
• It brought eight thousand strangers to Dallas.
• It sent army vehicles into action on city streets the night before the
assassination.
• Its early reservation of one large venue helped determine Kennedy's
ultimate destination and thus the motorcade route.
In any event, as Nixon's adviser Stephen Hess has recounted, the former
vice president emerged deeply shaken about the timing of his Dallas visit. It
served to remind him that if he ever occupied the Oval Office, he too could
be vulnerable and targeted -- by the very same players. And his presence in
this incriminating spot was suggestive of wheels within wheels, to which he
of all people would have been alert. Were these intrigues what fueled President
Nixon's obsession with the CIA and its cloak-and-dagger activities in
the Kennedy era? This little-noted tug-of-war, a struggle over both current
policy and past history, would become an ongoing theme throughout Nixon's
term in office.
The Loyalist in Chief
At one time, Poppy Bush had worked hard to position himself as Richard
Nixon's most loyal servant. An example appeared in a 1971 profile of Poppy
in his role as Nixon's United Nations ambassador. Under the banner headline
"Bush Working Overtime," the Dallas Morning News of September 19,
1971, portrayed the ambassador as poised at the center of world affairs.
Leaning forward at his desk, a large globe next to him, his lean face bearing
a look of calm intensity, George H. W. Bush looked almost presidential.
The reporter for the Texas paper picked up on that. But he was equally
struck by Poppy's devotion to the sitting president. Ambassador Bush, he
noted, "is loyal -- some say to a fault -- to President Nixon, and frequently
quotes him in conversation."
It was the image Poppy wanted to convey. Even when the reporter asked
for his own views, he quickly deferred. "I like to think of myself as a pragmatist,
but I have learned to defy being labeled," Bush said. "What I can say
is that I am a strong supporter of the President."
Of course, when someone defies being labeled, it gives him extraordinary
flexibility to move in different circles, to collect information, to spin on
a dime -- in short, to behave a lot like a covert intelligence officer.
The image of Poppy as the ultimate loyalist was one he would project for
three more years -- right up to the final days of the Nixon presidency. Not
even Nixon, who was famously distrustful, seemed to doubt it. After winning
the 1972 election in the midst of the Watergate scandal, Nixon decided
to hedge his bets and clean house.
Planning to fire all but his most trusted aides, Nixon instructed Ehrlichman
to "eliminate everyone except George Bush. Bush will do anything for
our cause." This trust endured to the end of Nixon's presidency.
If indeed Bush was ever a Nixon loyalist, he certainly flipped the moment
the tide turned. This new stance emerged with the 1974 public release of
the transcript of Nixon's smoking gun conversation with Haldeman. As
Bush would record in his diary after Nixon's final cabinet meeting, the taped
conversation was irrefutable proof that "Nixon lied about his knowledge of
the cover-up of the Watergate scandal . . . I felt betrayed by his lie . . . I want
to make damn clear the lie is something we can't support."
Added Poppy: "This era of tawdry, shabby lack of morality has got to end."
This purported diary entry was most likely part of Poppy's perennial alibi
trail. It could have been Bush family tradecraft, something like Barbara's
Tyler, Texas, hair salon letter from November 22, 1963 -- always intended
for public view. Perhaps the most revealing part is the point at which Bush
summarizes the content of the smoking gun conversation. Poppy selectively
paraphrases a tiny part of that session, making it look as if Nixon had
ordered Haldeman (as Bush put it) to "block the FBI's investigation of the
Watergate break-in." This, Poppy asserted, "was proof [that] the President
had been involved, at least in the cover-up."
What Poppy omitted were two key things: that it was actually John Dean's
suggestion, not Nixon's, to block the investigation -- and that the CIA was at
the center of the intrigue to begin with.
Watergate's Unknown Prelude
The series of scandals that undid Richard Nixon's presidency are principally
identified with the 1972 burglary at the Democratic party offices in the Watergate
complex. But one could argue that Watergate -- and Nixon's
downfall -- really began in late 1969, during Nixon's first year in office, with
a phone call from a man almost no one today has heard of.
An independent oilman named John M. King dialed in to offer ideas for
improving Nixon's hold over Congress. Former White House staffer Jack
Gleason remembered the episode: "[King] called one day in '69 and said,
'You know, we have to start planning for 1970.' "
King's call suggested he was principally concerned about helping Nixon,
but in retrospect, there may have been more at stake. For one thing, King
was a member of the fraternity of independent oilmen who were growing
increasingly unhappy with Nixon. As we saw in the last chapter, the oil barons
were up in arms over threats to the oil depletion allowance, convinced that
Nixon was not solidly enough in their corner. But they had other gripes.
As Haldeman noted in a diary entry in December 1969: "Big problem persists
on oil import quotas. Have to make some decision, and can't win. If
we do what we should, and what the task force recommends, we'd apparently
end up losing at least a couple of senate seats, including George Bush in
Texas. Trying to figure out a way to duck the whole thing and shift it to Congress."
On a more personal level, King was mired in problems. The Denver-based
King had assembled a global empire with oil drilling and mining operations
in a hundred countries; he was known for a high-flying lifestyle and a gift
for leveraging connections. He even had two Apollo astronauts on
his board. In 1968, King had donated $750,000 to Nixon, and as a big donor,
his calls always got attention. But King was, according to a Time magazine
article of the period, something of a huckster. By late 1969, his empire
was on the verge of collapse. In the end, he would face jail and ruin.
Perhaps he was looking to secure intervention from the White House.
Perhaps it was just general business insurance. Or perhaps he was speaking
on behalf of his fellow in dependent oilmen.
In any event, King's pitch sounded like a good idea. He was proposing
that the Nixon White House funnel money from big GOP donors directly to
Senate and House candidates of its choice, rather than following the customary
method: letting the Republican Party determine the recipients. To do this
without provoking the wrath of the GOP establishment, King suggested
it be kept under wraps.
This idea appealed to the White House brass, and soon, a special operation
was being convened.
"As it matured, we had a couple of meetings with Ehrlichman and Haldeman
and went over some of the ground rules," said Gleason. Haldeman
brought the bare bones of the idea to Nixon, who thought it sounded fine.
Anything that involved secrecy and centralized White House control was
likely to find a receptive ear. Gleason's recollection is confirmed by a notation
in Haldeman's diary of December 11: "I had meeting with [Maurice]
Stans, Dent, and Gleason about setting up our own funding for backing the
good candidates in hot races. A little tricky to handle outside the RNC but
looks pretty good."
The White House political unit assigned the job of organizing and running
the new fund to its operative Gleason, an experienced GOP fundraiser.
Gleason was instructed by his boss, Harry Dent, to find an office for the operation.
When he suggested renting space in one of those prefurnished office
suites that come with secretarial and other services, he was told that this
would be too expensive.
That struck Gleason as odd, since it would not have cost much more and
would have been a pittance in relation to the large sums that would be
raised. But he followed his orders and rented something cheaper and more
discreet. Dent directed him to a townhouse on Nineteenth Street, in a residential
area near Dupont Circle. The space was not just in a townhouse but
in the basement of a townhouse. And not only that, it was in the back of the
basement. Reporters would later describe it as a "townhouse basement back
room" -- an arrangement guaranteed to raise eyebrows if ever discovered.
The way in which the funds were to be handled also struck Gleason as
unnecessarily complicated, and even furtive. While donors could simply --
and legally -- have written a single check to each candidate's campaign committee,
they were instructed instead to break up their donations into a number of
smaller checks. The checks were then routed through the townhouse,
where Gleason would pick them up and deposit them in a "Jack
Gleason, Agent" account at American Security and Trust Bank. Gleason
then would convert the amounts into cashier's checks and send them on to
the respective campaign committees, often further breaking each donation
up into smaller ones and spreading them over more than one campaign
committee of each candidate.
The ostensible reason for these complex arrangements was to enable the
White House to control the money. The actual effect, however, was to create
the impression of something illicit, such as a money-laundering operation
aimed at hiding the identities of the donors.
Somewhere along the way Gleason began to detect an odor stronger than
that of quotidian campaign operations. What seemed suspect to him was
not that Nixon would help Republican candidates -- that was how things
worked. What bothered him were the operational details. Many seemed
positively harebrained, the kind of things with which no president should be
associated. But Gleason just figured that Richard Nixon, or his subordinates,
had a blind spot when it came to appearances of impropriety.
Deep-Sixing Nixon
Late in the election season, Gleason's superiors told him to add a new component
to the Townhouse Operation. Gleason found this new development
particularly disturbing. It was called the "Sixes Project." Launched in October
1970, when the midterm elections were almost over, it provided an extra
personal donation of six thousand dollars to each of thirteen Senate
candidates -- in cash.
Gleason's job was simple enough: get on a plane, fly out to meet each of
the candidates, and personally hand over an envelope of cash. He was to add
a personal message: "Here's a gift from Dick and Pat." And he was to keep
meticulous receipts, noting who received the cash and the date of the transaction.
Gleason was not happy about his role as dispenser of envelopes full of
cash. As he told me in a 2008 interview,
Of all the silly things I've ever been asked to do in this life, traveling around with six thousand dollars to give the guy and say, "This is from Dick and Pat," was colossally bad . . . Now you crank me up, leave a paper trail a mile long and a mile wide of flight tickets, hotel reservations, rental cars, everything, and have me traipsing all over the country giving these guys six thousand dollars in cash, [and besides], the six thousand doesn't matter, doesn't get you anywhere. If we give you a quarter of a million, what's another six thousand? . . . The six thousand dollars itself was a disconnect, because everything else was largely done to keep the whole thing under wraps.
In those days, the campaign finance laws, most of which were at the state
level, were limited and rarely enforced. Reporting requirements were thin,
but those candidates who wanted to abide by the law made sure to report
any cash they received to their respective campaign committees. That posed
a challenge for a candidate caught in a grueling nonstop schedule, who was
handed an envelope of cash. It would be easy enough to forget to report it,
whether deliberately or accidentally.
Even back in 1973, Gleason could come to only one conclusion. When
special prosecutors in the Watergate investigation later grilled him about
the Townhouse Operation, he told them as much. "The purpose of these
contributions was to set up possible blackmail for these candidates later
on." However, at that point Gleason assumed that the sponsors of the
blackmail were Nixon loyalists -- perhaps even authorized by the president
himself.
Alarmed at this arrangement, and cognizant that he might be generating
myriad campaign law violations, Gleason asked the White House for a legal
analysis. But despite multiple requests, he never got it. Finally, he asked for
a letter stating that nothing he was being asked to do was illegal. (That letter,
Gleason later explained, would somehow disappear before it could arrive at
the offices of the Watergate prosecutors.)
Since the six-thousand-dollar donations were ostensibly generated by
"Dick and Pat," one could easily surmise that Richard Nixon, or those under
his authority, were indeed out to get something on Republican candidates.
Once they took the cash, the recipients would have to do as he wanted, or
else risk exposure. As Assistant Special Prosecutor Charles Ruff wrote to
his boss: "It has been our guess that [the Nixon White House] hoped to gain
some leverage over these candidates by placing cash in their hands which
they might not report."
Had this become known, Nixon would have had trouble explaining it.
Few would have believed that such a scheme could have been run under
White House auspices without Nixon's approval. And yet that seems to have
been the case. In fact, Nixon's name rarely appears in the Townhouse files of
Watergate prosecutors -- for whom the evidence of Nixon's wrongdoing
would have been the ultimate prize.
Even the complex and calculating Charles Colson, who served as special
counsel to the president in 1970, admitted to prosecutors that Nixon was
not involved. Colson said that he had sat in on a Townhouse planning meeting
and later briefed the president about "political prospects in that race" -
but "did not recall that the fundraising aspects were discussed with the
President."
John Mitchell, who was attorney general before he resigned in 1972 to
head up Nixon's reelection campaign, attended a meeting for "substantial
contributors" and later told prosecutors that "the President stopped by, but
was not present during discussions of campaign finances." Mitchell himself
denied participation in or knowledge of the Town house plan. Even
Herb Kalmbach, Nixon's personal lawyer, seems to have been involved only
in the most benign part of the operation: the legal solicitation of funds from
wealthy donors. Of course, all this could be about denials and deniability -
but as we shall see, it apparently was not.
Meet John Dean
At the time Town house was becoming operational, the position of counsel
to the president opened up. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's trusted aide, was
moving to head up domestic affairs, and Ehrlichman was looking for someone
to replace him -- a smart lawyer and good detail man who was also loyal
to the president. The man who came on board on July 27, 1970, was John
Wesley Dean III.
Dean arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue just as President Nixon was
trying to figure out how to deal with massive street demonstrations against
the Vietnam War. A month before, a White House staffer named Tom Huston
had drawn up a plan to spy on the demonstrators through electronic
surveillance, recruitment of campus informants, and surreptitious entry
into offices and meeting places.
In hindsight, this sounds especially odious, and it was, but at the time, and
from the vantage point of the administration and its supporters in the "silent
majority," America was besieged. The general atmosphere in the country
and the domestic violence, actual and hinted, surrounding the Vietnam War
debate, felt like chaos was descending. Even so, Attorney General John
Mitchell shot down the notorious "Huston Plan." John Dean, however, took
an immediate interest in some of the proposals.
Although his official duties centered on giving the president legal advice --
often on arcane technical matters -- Dean was considered a junior staffer and
had virtually no contact with Nixon. Nevertheless, the White House neophyte
quickly began taking on for himself the far edgier and dubious mantle of
political intelligence guru.
Among the bits of intelligence Dean collected were the details of the
Townhouse Operation. In November 1970, following the midterm elections,
Jack Gleason turned over all his files to the White House, where
Haldeman had them delivered to Dean. Watergate investigators would later
discover that "Haldeman also gave Dean several little notebooks which pertained
to the 1970 fundraising." Those little notebooks would have told Dean who the
donors were, how much they gave, and the identity of the recipients.
Shortly after the files ended up in Dean's hands, the media began
receiving -- perhaps coincidentally -- leaks about the Townhouse Operation.
One of the first reports was an AP article with no byline that appeared
in the New York Times on December 27, 1970. It said that seven
ambassadors had received their positions as rewards for their contributions
to the Townhouse Operation: "Mr. Jack Gleason left the staff of a
White House political operative, Harry Dent, this fall to run the fund-
raising campaign from a basement back office in a Washington townhouse."
And there it was: Gleason caught up in something that sounded
sinister, complete with the townhouse basement back office, all purportedly
on behalf of Richard Nixon.
In February 1972, someone cranked Townhouse back up again. Jim Polk,
an investigative reporter at the Washington Star with an impressive track
record on campaign finance matters, got more information about the fund
from "inside sources."
Polk published an article headlined "Obscure Lawyer Raises Millions for
Nixon." It sounded even more disturbing than the previous one. Polk's article
did two things: it introduced the public to Nixon's personal lawyer Kalmbach
and it provided many new details about the Townhouse fund.
A little-known lawyer in Newport Beach, Calif., has raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions as an unpublicized fund- raiser . . . [and] as Nixon's personal agent . . . to collect campaign checks from Republican donors Kalmbach helped to raise nearly $3 million in covert campaign money . . . The checks were sent through a townhouse basement used by former Nixon political aide Jack A. Gleason. But the operation was run from inside the White House by presidential assistant H.R. (Bob) Haldeman . . . Only a portion of this money has shown up on public records. The rest of the campaign checks have been funneled through dummy committees.
When I spoke to Polk in 2008, not surprisingly, he no longer recalled the
identity of his source. But whoever had leaked this story to him was no
friend of Nixon's. Yet if it was intended to provoke further interest, it failed.
Someone had attempted to light a fuse with Townhouse, but it did not ignite.
Just four months later, however, another fuse was lit. And this one would
burn on and on.
The Brazen Burglary
If Townhouse was engineered to discredit Nixon, it had one potential flaw.
The wrongdoing involved technical financial matters that reporters might
find daunting. Watergate, on the other hand, was inherently sexy; it had all
the elements of the crime drama it became. The break-in was brazen and
easily grasped, and carried out in such a manner as to just about guarantee
both failure and discovery. It also involved a cast of characters that neither
reporters nor television cameras could resist (as the Watergate hearings later
would demonstrate). It was like a made-for-TV movie: burglars in business
suits, living in a fancy suite near the scene of the crime; Cuban expatriates;
documents in pockets leading to the White House. Even Nixon had to interrupt
his reelection campaign to confront it.
But the burglars didn't appear to take anything, so what was the intended
crime? Breaking and entering -- for what purpose?
As with the JFK assassination, theories abound. The burglars were found
with bugging equipment. But that made little sense; Nixon didn't have
much to worry about from his presumed Democratic opponent, George
McGovern. The risks of a bugging operation far outweighed any conceivable
gains. And if Nixon had really wanted inside dope on the McGovern
campaign, which he hardly needed, he could have sent teams into McGovern's
headquarters up on Capitol Hill, or to Miami, where the Democrats
would hold their convention.
If, on the other hand, the intent was to fire the public imagination, the
Watergate complex was far better -- and Washington itself a necessary locale
if the national press was to stay with the story week after week.
With all this in mind, Nixon's observation in his memoirs that "the whole
thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of
a setup" seems on the mark.
If the Cubans were really trying to do the job, their supervisors were
guilty of malpractice. They might as well have called the D.C. police to reserve
an interrogation room.
The flubs were so obvious it was as if they were the work of amateurs --
which it was not. Burglary team member James McCord left tape horizontally
over a lock, so that it could be spotted, as it was, by a security guard
when the door was closed. If he had taped the lock vertically, it would have
been invisible to a passerby. And if the intent was to pull off a real burglary,
there was no need for tape anyway -- as the burglars were already inside.
Even so, after the security guard discovered and removed the tape, McCord
put it right back.
The entire operation reflected poor judgment. An experienced burglar
would have known not to carry any sort of identification, and certainly not
identification that led back to the boss. How elementary is that? Among the
incriminating materials found on the Watergate burglars was a check with
White House consultant E. Howard Hunt's signature on it -- and Hunt's
phone number at the White House, in addition to checks drawn on Mexican
bank accounts. Despite the obvious risks, the burglars were also instructed
by Hunt to register at the Watergate Hotel, and to keep their room keys in
their pockets during the mission. These keys led investigators straight back
to an array of incriminating evidence, not the least damaging of which was
a suitcase containing the burglars' ID cards. Everything pointed back to
CREEP and the White House.
The most interesting thing was that the materials identified the burglars
as connected not just to the White House, but to the CIA as well. And not
just to the CIA, but to a group within the CIA that had been active during
the controversial period that included the Bay of Pigs invasion and the
assassination of JFK.
Hunt, whose status in the CIA was described earlier, was a high-ranking
(GS-15) officer and a member of the "Plumbers," a White House special
investigations unit ostensibly dedicated to stopping government leaks to the
media. As discussed in chapter 6, Hunt had been a key player in the coup in
Guatemala and the Bay of Pigs invasion, in addition to working very closely
with Allen Dulles himself. As noted previously, Dulles was in Dallas shortly
before November 22.
And Hunt had been there on the very day of the assassination, according
to an account confirmed in 1978 by James Angleton, the longtime CIA
counterintelligence chief. Angleton, clearly concerned that investigations
would uncover Hunt's presence in Dallas anyway, went so far as to alert a
reporter and a House Committee to Hunt's being in the city that day, and
then opined that Hunt had been involved in unauthorized activities while
there; 'Some very odd things were going on that were out of our control."
Watergate burglar and electronic surveillance expert James McCord, like
Hunt, had also been a GS-15 agent, serving for over a decade in the CIA's
Office of Security. Around the time of the Kennedy assassination, he began
working with anti-Castro Cubans on a possible future invasion of the island.
Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel, saying,
"This man is the best man we have." Regarding Nixon, McCord dismissed
him to a colleague as not a team player, not "one of us."
In a long-standing tradition, both Hunt and McCord had officially "resigned"
from the agency prior to the Watergate time frame. But their continued
involvement in CIA-related cover operations suggested otherwise.
Indeed, as noted earlier in the book, many figures, including Poppy Bush's
oil business colleague Thomas J. Devine, officially took retirement prior to
participating in seemingly independent operations in which deniability was
crucial.
Though Hunt claimed to have cut his CIA ties, he actually went out of
his way to draw attention to those ties while working in the Nixon White
House. He ostentatiously ordered a limousine to drive him from the
White House out to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. It was as though
he was trying to broadcast the notion that Nixon was working closely with
the agency -- with which, as we now know, the president was in reality battling.
After Hunt's alleged retirement, he was employed at the Mullen Company,
a public relations firm that served as a CIA cover. In a 1973 memo, Charles
Colson recounted a meeting he'd just had with Senate Republican minority
leader Howard Baker. Charles Colson wrote, "Baker said that the Mullen
Company was a CIA front, that [Hunt's] job with the Mullen Company was
arranged by [CIA director] Helms personally." Baker also informed Colson
that, during Hunt's time at the Mullen Company, his pay had been adjusted to
the exact salary he would have been making had he stayed at the spy agency.
Eugenio Martinez, one of the anti-Castro Cuban burglars, was another
CIA operative in the break-in crew. Indeed, he was the one member of the
team who remained actively on the CIA payroll, filing regular reports on the
activities of the team to his Miami case officer. Then there was Bernard L.
Barker, who first worked as an FBI in formant before being turned over to
the CIA during the run-up to the Bay of Pigs. Frank Sturgis, too, had CIA
connections. Martinez, Barker, and Sturgis had worked with Hunt and Mc-
Cord on the Second Naval Guerrilla operation.
So Nixon, who had been trying to see the CIA's file on the Bay of Pigs,
was now staring at a burglary purportedly carried out in his name by veterans
of the same "Bay of Pigs thing" with strong CIA ties. It was like a flashing
billboard warning. CIA professionals, Cuban exiles, all tied to the events
of 1961 through 1963, suddenly appearing in the limelight and tying themselves
and their criminal activity to the president.
If most of us ever knew, we have probably long since forgotten that before
the June 1972 Watergate break-in, there was another Watergate break-in
by the same crew. With this earlier one, though, they were careful to avoid
detection and were not caught. At that time, they installed listening devices.
The second burglary, the one that seemingly was designed for detection,
and designed to be traced back to the Nixon White House, ostensibly revolved
around removing listening devices installed earlier -- and therefore drawing
attention to the devices and the surveillance.
The conclusion one would likely draw from their being caught red-handed
is that Dick Nixon is up to yet another manifestation of his twisted and illegal
inclinations. And what were they listening to? Purportedly, DNC personnel
were arranging for "dates" for distinguished visitors with a call-girl ring. The
ring was operating from down the street, not far from where the bugs were
being monitored. The conclusion is that Nixon was perhaps trying to sexually
blackmail the Democrats. It got more and more objectionable.
But the fact is that no evidence shows Nixon wanting to sexually blackmail
Democrats, nor wanting to install bugs at the DNC, nor wanting to
order a burglary to remove the bugs. Yet somebody else clearly had a good
imagination, and a talent for executing a script that was magnificently inculpatory
of someone who would appear to deserve removal from the highest
office in the land.
Eventually, Americans would learn that the Watergate break-ins were
not the first such operation that made Nixon look bad, and not the first coordinated
by Hunt and featuring Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Back in September 1971, the team hit the Beverly Hills office of Dr.
Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle-blower who
leaked the explosive Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. First, though,
Nixon, who was initially indifferent over the leak, was persuaded to take on
the Times for publishing the documents, a posture that would position him
as a foe of public disclosure. It also escalated his already adversarial relationship
with the news media -- a relationship that would become a severe
disadvantage to Nixon as the Watergate "revelations" began to emerge.
Nixon was also persuaded to authorize the formation of a leak-busting
White House group, which was soon dubbed "the Plumbers." Soon, purportedly
operating on Nixon's behalf -- but without his actual approval -- the
Hunt team broke into Dr. Fieldingís office, having been told to photograph
Ellsberg's patient files.
However, as with Watergate, the burglary appears to have had an ulterior
motive. Senator Baker, ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee,
learned of this, according to White House special counsel Charles
Colson, when Baker interviewed the Cuban émigré Eugenio Martinez, who
participated in the burglaries of both Fielding's office and the DNC office in
Watergate:
Baker told me of his interview with Martinez who said that there were no patient records in Dr. Fielding's office, that he, Martinez, was very disappointed when they found nothing there, but Hunt on the other hand seemed very pleased and as a matter of fact broke out a bottle of champagne when the three men returned from the job. Martinez says that he has participated in three hundred or four hundred similar CIA operations, that this was clearly a 'cover' operation with no intention of ever finding anything.
In fact, though the burglars were ostensibly seeking records while on a
covert mission, they did not act like people who wished to avoid discovery. In
addition to smashing the windows and prying open the front door with a crowbar,
the burglars proceeded to vandalize the office, scattering papers, pills, and
files across the floor. The result was to ensure the generation of a crime report,
establishing a record of the burglary. The break-in would not become public
knowledge until John Dean dramatically revealed it two years later --
and implicitly tied Nixon to it by citing the involvement of Egil Krogh, the man in
charge of Nixon's so-called Plumbers unit.
Dean and his lawyers showed far greater enthusiasm for pursuing the
Beverly Hills break-in than even the prosecutors. As Renata Adler wrote in
the New Yorker: "Dean's attorney, Charles Shaffer, practically had to spell it
out to [the prosecutors] that they would be taking part in an obstruction of
justice themselves if they did not pass the information on."
Like Watergate, the Fielding office break-in was on its face a very bad idea
that was not approved by Nixon but certain to deeply embarrass him and
damage his public standing when it was disclosed. The principal accomplishment
of the break-in was to portray Nixon as a man who had no decency
at all -- purportedly even stooping to obtain private psychiatric records
of a supposed foe. This was almost guaranteed to provoke public revulsion.
The notion that a group surrounding the president could be working to
do him in might sound preposterous to most of us. But not to veterans of
America's clandestine operations, where the goal abroad has often been to
do just that. And Nixon was a perfect target: solitary, taciturn, with few
friends, and not many more people he trusted. Because of this, he had to
hire virtual strangers in the White House, and as a result, the place was
teeming with schemers. Nixon was too distrustful, and yet not distrustful
enough. It was supremely ironic. Nixon, ridiculed for his irrational hatred
and "paranoia" toward the Eastern Establishment, may in the end have been
done in by forces controlled by that very establishment. Of course, it was
nothing less than that level of power to remove presidents, plural, one after
the other if necessary.
Among the myriad plots was the so-called Moorer-Radford affair, cited in
chapter 9, in which the military actually was spying on Nixon and stealing
classified documents in an attempt to gain inside information, influence
policy, and perhaps even unseat the president.
That Nixon could actually have been the victim of Watergate, and not the
perpetrator, will not sit well with many, especially those with a professional
stake in Nixon's guilt. Yet three of the most thoroughly reported books on
Watergate from the past three decades have come to the same conclusion:
that Nixon and/or his top aides were indeed set up. Each of these books takes
a completely different approach, focuses on different aspects, and relies on
essentially different sets of facts and sources. These are 1984's Secret Agenda,
by former Harper's magazine Washington editor Jim Hougan; 1991's Silent
Coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin; and 2008's The Strong Man, by
James Rosen.
Rosen's The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate is a biography
of Nixon's close friend, attorney general, and campaign chief, the
highest-ranking official ever to be sentenced to prison. The book, on which
Rosen labored for seventeen years, is based on sources not previously interviewed
and also on unprecedented access to documents generated by the Senate
Watergate Committee and Watergate special prosecutors. Rosen asserts
that the Watergate operation was authorized behind Mitchell's back by his
subordinate Jeb Magruder and by John Dean and was deliberately sabotaged
in its execution by burglar and former CIA officer James McCord. As Rosen
puts it:
Mitchell knew he had been set up. In later years, his mind reeled at the singular confluence of amazing characters that produced Watergate -- Dean, Magruder, Liddy, Helms, Hunt, McCord, Martinez -- and reckoned himself and the president, neither of whom enjoyed foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in, victims in the affair. "The more I got into this," Mitchell said in June 1987, "the more I see how these sons of bitches have not only done Nixon in but they've done me in."
Rosen also writes:
The [Watergate] tapes unmasked Nixon not as the take-charge boss of a criminal conspiracy but rather as an aging and confused politician lost in a welter of detail, unable to distinguish his Magruders from his Strachans, uncertain who knew what and when, what each player had told the grand jury, whose testimony was direct, whose hearsay.
My independent research takes the argument one step further, and the facts in a completely
new direction. It leads to an even more disturbing conclusion as to what
was really going on, and why.
Woodward at His Post
The accepted narrative of Nixon as the villain of Watergate is based largely on
the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They both were young reporters
on the Washington Post's Metro desk when the story fell into their
laps.
When it was over, they were household names. Woodward in particular would
go on to become the nation's most visible investigative journalist, and indeed
the iconic representation of that genre. The work of "Woodstein" would play a
key role in enhancing the franchise of the Post itself. Yet this oeuvre -- in
particular the role of Woodward -- has become somewhat suspect among those
who have taken a second and third look -- including Columbia Journalism
Review contributing editor Steve Weinberg, in a November/December 1991
article.
Woodward did not fit the profile of the typical daily print reporter. Young,
midwestern, Republican, he attended Yale on an ROTC scholarship and
then spent five years in the Navy. He had begun with a top-secret security
clearance on board the USS Wright, specializing in communications, including
with the White House.
His commanding officer was Rear Admiral Robert O. Welander, who
would later be implicated in the military spy ring in the Nixon White
House, mentioned in chapter 9. According to Silent Coup, an exhaustive
study of the military espionage scandal, Woodward then arrived in Washington,
where he worked on the staff of Admiral Thomas Moorer, chief of naval
operations, again as a communications officer, this time one who provided
briefings and documents to top brass in the White House on national security
matters. According to this account, in 1969-70, Woodward frequently
walked through the basement offices of the White House West Wing with
documents from Admiral Moorer to General Alexander Haig, who served
under Henry Kissinger.
In a 2008 interview, Woodward categorically denied having any intelligence
connections. He also denied having worked in the White House or
providing briefings there. "It's a matter of record in the Navy what I did,
what I didn't do," Woodward said. "And this Navy Intelligence, Haig and so
forth, you know, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it if it's true. It just
isn't. Can you accept that?"
Journalist Len Colodny, however, has produced audiotapes of interviews
by his Silent Coup coauthor, Robert Gettlin, with Admiral Moorer, former defense
secretary Melvin Laird, Pentagon spokesman Jerry Friedheim -- and
even with Woodward's own father, Al -- speaking about Bob's White House
service.
At a minimum, Woodward's entry into journalism received a valuable
outside assist, according to an account provided by Harry Rosenfeld, a retired
Post editor, to the Saratogian newspaper in 2004:
Bob had come to us on very high recommendations from someone in the White House. He had been an intelligence officer in the Navy and had served in the Pentagon. He had not been exposed to any newspaper. We gave him a tryout because he was so highly recommended. We customarily didn't do that. We wanted to see some clips, and he had none of that. We tried him out, and after a week or two I asked my deputy, "What's with this guy?" And he said well, he's a very bright guy but he doesn't know how to put the paper in the typewriter. But he was bright, there was that intensity about him and his willingness, and he acted maturely. So we decided because he had come so highly recommended and he had shown certain strengths that we would help get him a job at the Montgomery County Sentinel.
In 2008, some time after I spoke to Woodward, I reached Rosenfeld. He
said he did not recall telling the Saratogian that Woodward had been hired
on the advice of someone in the White House. He did, however, tell me that
he remembered that Woodward had been recommended by Paul Ignatius,
the Post's president. Prior to taking over the Post's presidency, Ignatius had
been Navy secretary for President Johnson.
In a 2008 interview, Ignatius told me it was possible that he had a hand
in at least recommending Woodward. "It's possible that somebody asked
me about him, and it's possible that I gave him a recommendation," Ignatius
said. "I don't remember initiating anything, but I can't say I didn't." I
asked Ignatius how a top Pentagon administrator such as himself would
even have known of a lowly lieutenant, such as Woodward was back in
those days, and Ignatius said he did not recall.
In September 1971, after one year of training at the Maryland-based Sentinel,
Woodward was hired at the Washington Post . The Post
itself is steeped
in intelligence connections. The paper's owner, the Graham family, were, as
noted in chapter 3, aficionados of the apparatus, good friends of top spies,
and friends also of Prescott Bush. They even helped fund Poppy Bush's earliest
business venture. Editor Ben Bradlee was himself a Yale graduate who,
like Woodward, had spent time in naval intelligence during World War II.
(As noted earlier, Poppy Bush had also been associated with naval intelligence
during World War II: prior to beginning his work with the CIA, he had
been involved with top-secret aerial reconnaissance photography.)
Woodward demonstrated his proclivity for clandestine sources a month
before the Watergate break-in, in his coverage of the shooting and serious
wounding of presidential candidate George Wallace at a shopping center in
Washington's Maryland suburbs. A lone gunman, Arthur Bremer, would be
convicted. Woodward impressed his editors with his tenacity on the case,
and his contacts. As noted in a journalistic case study published by Columbia
University:
At the time, according to [Post editors Barry] Sussman and [Harry]
Rosenfeld, Woodward said he had "a friend" who might be able to
help. Woodward says his "friend" filled him in on Bremer's background
and revealed that Bremer had also been stalking other
presidential candidates.
As to Woodward's initial introduction to the newspaper, nobody seems to
have questioned whether a recommendation from someone in the White
House would be an appropriate reason for the Post to hire a reporter. Nor
does anyone from the Post appear to have put a rather obvious two and two
together, and noted that Woodward made quick work of bringing down the
president, and therefore wondered who at the White House recommended
Woodward in the first place -- and with what motivation.
Others, however, were more curious. After Charles Colson met with Senator
Howard Baker and his staff -- including future senator Fred Thompson --
he recounted the session in a previously unpublished memo to file:
The CIA has been unable to determine whether Bob Woodward was employed by the agency. The agency claims to be having difficulty checking personnel files. Thompson says that he believes the delay merely means that they don't want to admit that Woodward was in the agency. Thompson wrote a lengthy memo to Baker last week complaining about the CIA's non-cooperation, the fact that they were supplying material piecemeal and had been very uncooperative. The memo went into the CIA relationship with the press, specifically Woodward. Senator Baker sent the memo directly to [CIA Director] Colby with a cover note and within a matter of a few hours, Woodward called Baker and was incensed over the memo. It had been immediately leaked to him.
Woodward's good connections would help generate a series of exclusive-
access interviews that would result in rapidly produced bestselling books.
One was Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, a controversial book
that relied in part, Woodward claimed, on a deathbed interview -- not
recorded -- with former CIA director William Casey. The 543-page book,
which came out as Poppy Bush was seeking the presidency, contained no
substantive mentions of any role on the part of Bush in these "secret wars,"
though Bush was both vice president with a portfolio for covert ops and a
former CIA director.
Asked how it was possible to leave Bush out of such a detailed account of
covert operations during his vice presidency, Woodward replied, "Bush was,
well, I don't think he was -- What was it he said at the time? I was out of the
loop?" Woodward went on to be blessed with unique access to George W.
Bush -- a president who did not grant a single interview to America's top
newspaper, the New York Times, for nearly half his administration -- and the
automatic smash bestsellers that guaranteed. Woodward would also distinguish
himself for knowing about the administration's role in leaking the
identity of CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame but not writing or saying
anything about it, despite an ongoing investigation and media tempest.
When this was revealed, Woodward issued an apology to the Post.
To its credit, the Washington Post in these years had other staffers doing
some of the best reporting on the intelligence establishment. Perhaps the
most revealing work came prior to Nixon's tenure, while Woodward was still
doing his naval service. In a multipart, front-page series by Richard Harwood
in early 1967, the paper began reporting the extent to which the CIA
had penetrated civil institutions not just abroad, but at home as well. "It was
not enough for the United States to arm its allies, to strengthen governmental
institutions, or to finance the industrial establishment through economic
and military programs," Harwood wrote. "Intellectuals, students, educators,
trade unionists, journalists and professional men had to be reached directly
through their private concerns." Journalists too. Even Carl Bernstein later
wrote about the remarkable extent of the CIA's penetration of newsrooms,
detailing numerous examples, in a 1977 Rolling Stone article. As for the Post
itself, Bernstein wrote:
When Newsweek was purchased by the
Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press. Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graham, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
In 1965-66, an accredited Newsweek stringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said.
Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements.
When the Watergate burglary story broke, Bob Woodward got the assignment,
in part, his editor Barry Sussman recalled, because he never
seemed to leave the building. "I worked the police beat all night," Wood-
ward said in an interview with authors Tom Rosenstiel and Amy S.
Mitchell, "and then I'd go home -- I had an apartment five blocks from the
Post -- and sleep for a while. I'd show up in the newsroom around 10 or 11
[in the morning] and work all day too. People complained I was working too
hard." So when the bulletin came in, Woodward was there. The result was
a front-page account revealing that E. Howard Hunt's name appeared in the
address book of one of the burglars and that a check signed by Hunt had
been found in the pocket of another burglar, who was Cuban. It went further:
Hunt, Woodward reported, worked as a consultant to White House counsel
Charles Colson.
Thus, Woodward played a key role in tying the burglars to Nixon.
Woodward would later explain in All the President's Men (coauthored with
Bernstein) that to find out more about Hunt, he had "called an old friend
and sometimes source who worked for the federal government." His friend
did not like to be contacted at this office and "said hurriedly that the break-
in case was going to 'heat up,' but he couldn't explain and hung up." Thus
began Woodward's relationship with Deep Throat, that mysterious source
who, Woodward would later report, served in the executive branch of government
and had access to information in the White House and CREEP.
Based on tips from Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein began to "follow
the money," writing stories in September and October 1972 on a political
"slush fund" linked to CREEP. One story reported that the fund had
financed the bugging of the Democratic Party's Watergate headquarters as
well as other intelligence-gathering activities. While Nixon coasted to a
landslide victory over the liberal Democrat George McGovern, the story
seemed to go on hiatus. But just briefly.
Poppy Enters, Stage Right
If someone did want to undermine the president from outside the White
House, he couldn't have found a better perch than the chairmanship of the
Republican Party.
Right after the election, Poppy Bush, again utilizing his pull with Nixon,
had persuaded the president to bring him back from his cushy U.N. post
and install him at the Republican National Committee. This put him at the
very epicenter of the nationwide Republican elite that would ultimately
determine whether Nixon would stay or go.
As chairman of the RNC, Poppy was expected to be the president's chief
advocate, especially to the party faithful. He would travel widely, interact
with big donors and party activists. If anyone would have their finger on the
pulse of the loyalist base, it was Poppy. He would have a good sense of what
would keep supporters in line, and conversely, what might convince them to
abandon ship.
But Poppy was unique among RNC chairmen over the years in that he
had convinced Nixon to let him maintain an official presence at the White
House. Just as Nixon had permitted him to participate in cabinet meetings
as U.N. ambassador, he now continued to extend that privilege while Poppy
ran the RNC. This was unprecedented for someone in such an overtly partisan
position.
Here was a man closely connected to the CIA, as we have seen, now both
running the Republican Party and sitting in on cabinet deliberations. An
intelligence officer couldn't have asked for a better perch. Moreover, this put
him in the catbird seat just as Watergate began heating up.
But Poppy was even more wired into Nixonworld. When he came to the
RNC, he hired Harry Dent and Tom Lias, the top officials of Nixon's Political
Affairs office, which had established the Town house Operation. Dent was
the architect of Nixon's Southern strategy, with which Poppy Bush and his
backers were closely allied. Lias had ties to Poppy from before working in
the White House. He had been a top organizer for the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee, strategizing how to elect people like Poppy to
formerly Democratic seats in the South.
After Poppy came to Washington, the two often socialized. According to
Pierre Ausloos, stepfather of Lias's daughter, and a friend of the family, "On
weekends, Bush would always invite [Lias] for a barbecue party at his house
here in Washington." Ausloos also remembers that during the 1968
Republican convention, Liasís daughter's babysitter was Poppy's son, George
W. Bush.
Thus, at the time Dent and Lias were installed in the White House Political
Affairs office, they were already close with Bush. Indeed, right after the
1970 election and the termination of the Town house Operation, Bush took
Lias with him to New York, where Lias served as a top aide on Poppy's
United Nations staff. The U.N. choice struck people who knew Lias as odd.
Lias had no relevant qualifications or knowledge for the U.N. post, just as
Poppy himself didn't.
Poppy's decision, once he moved to the RNC, to hire both Lias and
Dent -- the two men supervising Jack Gleason's Town house Operation --
is surely significant.
Meanwhile, Poppy Bush and his team had already been in contact with
John Dean.
In a brief 2008 conversation, in which a prickly Dean sought to control
the conditions of the interview, I asked him whether he had any dealings
with Bush. "I think there are some phone calls on my phone logs, but I
never met with him personally," he said.
Indeed, phone logs show that on June 24, 1971, Ambassador Bush called
Dean, and on December 6, 1971, Tom Lias of Ambassador Bush's office
called. The logs show other calls from Lias as well. It is not clear -- nor did
Dean volunteer an opinion -- why Bush and Lias would have been calling
him at all.
Slumming in Greenwich
When the Senate created a committee to investigate Watergate, there was no
guarantee that anything would come of it. The perpetrators -- the burglars
and their supervisors, Hunt and Liddy -- were going on trial, and it was uncertain
whether the hearings would produce any further insights. Moreover,
the committee featured four rather somnolent Democrats and three Republicans,
two of them staunch Nixon loyalists.
This left only one wild card: Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican from
Connecticut.
A freshman, and an independent one, Weicker was not disposed to knee-
jerk defense of Nixon. Furthermore, he saw himself as a crusader. At six feet
six, Weicker was imposing, considered basically well-intentioned, a little
naive, and in love with publicity. He had gotten his political start in the
Bush hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut; and like the Bushes, he was
heir to a family fortune, in his case from two grandfathers who owned the
Squibb pharmaceutical company.
But there the similarities ended. Weicker chose for his base Greenwich's
Third Voting District, which consisted almost entirely of working-class
Italians. "Just decent, hard-working, down-to-basics families," Weicker
would say. "Had I been raised as a typical Republican in the salons of Fair-
field County, discussing international issues at teas and cocktail parties,
I know my career would have been a short one once off the Greenwich
electoral scene." In 1960, Weicker aligned himself with Albert Morano,
a congressional candidate opposed by the Bush family. Now the Bushes
saw Weicker as a traitor to his class. Over the years, Weicker and Bush
would generally maintain a cool but civil relationship, driven by political
expediency.
"I think he was viewed as an outsider from day one, and it was a perspective
he relished," said Townhouse operative Jack Gleason. "Because he
always used to joke about 'the Round Hill boys out to get me again' every
time he was up for reelection."
Weicker had arrived in Washington in 1968, following his election to the
House of Representatives. Given the past, this would have made him a
not-very-welcome colleague of Poppy Bush. And Poppy probably was not
enthused when, after only two years in the House, Weicker was elected
to Prescott Bush's old Senate seat -- in the same year Poppy lost his second
Senate bid. Weicker's star was rising faster than Poppy's -- and in the Bush
home state to boot. It must have rankled.
Still, Weicker's least endearing qualities -- his considerable ambition,
love of publicity, and penchant for self-aggrandizement -- would shortly
prove useful in at least one respect: as a champion of the "truth" on the
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, commonly
known as the Watergate Committee. The same Republican maverick who
had no qualms about challenging his party's leadership in Connecticut
would soon debut his maverick persona on the national stage.
In his memoirs, Weicker writes that he was given the Watergate Committee
assignment because he was one of only two Republicans who volunteered
and that his interest in "campaign financing" and dwindling faith in
the democratic process spurred his personal interest. Interestingly, the
other Republican volunteer, stalwart conservative Edward J. Gurney of Florida,
had won his seat with the help of Bush's top political lieutenant, Jimmy
Allison -- and eldest son George W. Bush, who took the extraordinary step of
securing a leave from his National Guard unit in 1968, when he had barely
begun his military training. The other Republican on the committee was Minority
Leader Howard Baker, a moderate. Weicker was the only Republican
on the committee with the inclination to prove his independence from the
party and openly challenge the president.
By the spring of 1973, six defendants had been sentenced in the DNC burglary,
and the Watergate hearings were due to begin. There was now an opportunity
for Nixon to put the whole Watergate affair behind him, without
mortal damage to his presidency. Weicker, however, already saw his role as
an honest broker, and he criticized Nixon's attempts at tamping down the
matter. "I think the national interest is achieved by opening, not closing, the
White House doors," he said. He added that he would vote in favor of subpoenas
for White House officials to appear before the committee.
Poppy Bush apparently agreed. On March 20, the day after Weicker's remarks,
Poppy went to see Nixon at the Oval Office. In his usual oblique way,
ascribing his advice to others, he urged Nixon to send John Dean to testify.
BUSH: We're getting hit a little bit, Mr. President . . . It's building, and the mail's getting heavier . . . NIXON: What do you think you can do about it? . . . We've got hearings coming up. The hearings will make it worse. BUSH: . . . I was speaking with the executives at the Bull Elephants The guy said to me, why doesn't the President send Dean? . . . The disclosure is what they're calling for. NIXON: We are cooperating They don't want any cooperation. They aren't interested in getting the facts. They're only interested in [politicalgains?] I wish there were an answer to Watergate, but I just don't know any . . . I don't know a damn thing to do. [emphasis added]
John Ehrlichman remembers that meeting well, as noted in his memoirs.
"Bush argued that the only way to blunt the current onslaught in the newspapers
and on television was for the president to be totally forthcoming -- to
tell everything he knew about all aspects of Watergate."
This was a significant moment, where Poppy demonstrates a possible
connection to and interest in Dean. It was a sort of specific advice that warrants
attention, because it is an indication that the outsider Bush is unusually
well informed about who knows what inside the White House --
and encourages Nixon to let Dean begin confessing his knowledge. When I
asked Dean in 2008 why he thought Poppy Bush was suggesting he testify,
he said he had no idea.
Nixon resisted Poppy's advice to have Dean testify because, Nixon maintained,
there was no White House staff involvement in Watergate, and
therefore Dean's testimony would serve only to break executive privilege,
once and for all. "The president can't run his office by having particularly
his lawyer go up and testify," Nixon told Poppy.
If Poppy Bush seemed to have unusually good intelligence as to what
was happening in the Oval Office, it might have had something to do with
a good friend of his who was right in there with Nixon and Dean during the
most critical days of Watergate. Richard A. Moore, a lawyer who served as a
kind of elder statesman off of whom Nixon and Mitchell could bounce
ideas, was, like Poppy, an alumnus of Andover, Yale, and Skull and Bones.
Moore served as special assistant to the chief of military intelligence during
World War II and is believed to have transitioned to civilian intelligence
after the war. Over the years, Moore was practically a member of the
extended Bush clan, exchanging intimate notes with Poppy and even joining
family dinners.
Moore shows up in background roles on a number of Nixon tapes, and
phone logs show a flurry of phone calls between Moore and Dean, especially
in the final weeks before Dean turned on Nixon. In a little-reported taped telephone
conversation from March 16, Dean tells Nixon that he and Moore are
working on a Watergate report; he also mentions that he and Moore drive
home together. On March 20, in an Oval Office meeting featuring Nixon,
Dean, and Moore -- just prior to Nixon's meeting with Poppy Bush --
Moore can be heard typing the report in the background.
Dean would later write that the term "cancer" as used in his famous "cancer
on the presidency" briefing had been suggested by Moore -- who though a close
Nixon adviser in these sensitive days, managed to emerge from Watergate
obscure and unscathed. His Watergate testimony did not support Dean, but
he tended to be ambiguous. As Time magazine noted on July 23, 1973,
"The Moore testimony was certainly not evidence that the President
had had prior knowledge of the Plumbers' felonious break-in. But it seemingly
betrayed a curious nonchalance on the President's part toward questionable
activities by White House staffers."
Later, with Nixon departing and Ford preparing to become president,
Moore urged Ford to make Poppy Bush his vice president, arguing that
Bush had strong economic credentials. Moore specifically cited Poppy's ties
to Wall Street through his father and grandfather, "both highly respected investment
bankers in New York." Moore would go on to work on all of Poppy
Bush's presidential campaigns, including his unsuccessful 1980 bid, and
would in 1989 be named by Poppy as his ambassador to Ireland.
Repeat After Me
Immediately after Poppy tried to convince Nixon to send Dean to testify,
Dean himself telephoned the president. Dean asked to urgently meet the
following morning and carefully explained to Nixon that there were important
details of which the president was unaware and that he would tell him
about these things -- but did not yet tell him:
DEAN: I think that one thing that we have to continue to do, and particularly right now, is to examine the broadest, broadest implications of this whole thing, and, you know, maybe about thirty minutes of just my recitations to you of facts so that you operate from the same facts that everybody else has. NIXON: Right. DEAN: I don't think -- we have never really done that. It has been sort of bits and pieces. Just paint the whole picture for you, the soft spots, the potential problem areas [emphasis added]
In other words, Dean was admitting, nine months into the scandal, that
he knew quite a bit about Watergate that he had never revealed to the president.
Now Dean planned to clue him in.
Nixon then inquired about the progress on a public statement Dean was
to be preparing -- and was made to understand that the statement was going
to try to avoid specifics, i.e., employ a common practice, stonewalling:
NIXON: And so you are coming up, then with the idea of just a stonewall then? Is that -- DEAN: That's right. NIXON: Is that what you come down with? DEAN: Stonewall, with lots of noises that we are always willing to cooperate, but no one is asking us for anything.
Nixon went on to pressure Dean to issue a statement to the cabinet explaining,
in very general terms, the White House's willingness to cooperate in any
investigations. Without going into detail, Nixon wanted to publicly defend the
innocence of White House officials whom he believed were innocent:
NIXON: I just want a general -- DEAN: An all-around statement. NIXON: That's right. Try just something general. Like "I have checked into this matter; I can categorically, based on my investigation, the following: Haldeman is not involved in this, that and the other thing. Mr. Colson did not do this; Mr. So- and- so did not do this. Mr. Blank did not do this." Right down the line, taking the most glaring things. If there are any further questions, please let me know. See? DEAN: Uh huh, I think we can do that.
But Dean apparently didn't intend to "do that." He was seemingly waiting
for the right moment to create the right effect -- and that moment would not
come until he had jumped the wall to the other side and become the key witness
for the prosecution.
In Haldemans diary entry of the same day, he observes that Nixon wants
to come clean, but that Dean is warning him not to:
[The president] feels strongly that we've got to say something to get ourselves away from looking like we're completely on the defensive and on a cover-up basis. If we . . . are going to volunteer to send written statements . . . we might as well do the statements now and get them publicized and get our answers out. The problem is that Dean feels this runs too many leads out. [emphasis added]
Thus, according to this account, Nixon was interested in facing his problems.
This included, it appears, telling what they knew -- Nixon's version, in
any case.
And John Dean was urging Nixon not to do that. To make that case, Dean
was feeding Nixon's paranoia. In other words, Dean seemed to be saying:
Too many leads out. Let me control this process.
In response to a combination of events -- Weicker's call for more disclosure,
Bush's intervention with Nixon aimed at forcing Dean to testify, and
Dean's own insistence that there was more to the story -- Nixon met with
Dean the next day. That conversation, together with the smoking gun episode,
would help seal Nixon's fate.
On the morning of March 21, Nixon's White House counsel stepped
into the Oval Office and proceeded to deliver a speech that would make
Dean famous for the rest of his life. He would dramatically warn the president
of a "cancer on the presidency" soon to become inoperable. This
speech, which would shortly become Dean's principal evidence against
Nixon, may have been carefully calculated based on Dean's awareness
that the conversations were being taped. (Dean would later say he suspected
he was being taped, but as we shall see, he may have known for certain.)
In fact, for this dramatic moment, Dean had begun performing dress
rehearsals some eight days earlier. This is borne out by earlier taped
conversations -- ones whose very existence has been largely suppressed in
published accounts. In these earlier tapes, we hear Dean beginning to tell
Nixon about White House knowledge related to Watergate. (Most of these
tapes are excluded from what is generally considered the authoritative compendium
of transcripts, Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes, by Stanley Kutler,
who told me in a 2008 interview that he considers himself a close friend
of John Dean.)
In one unpublicized taped conversation, from March 13, Dean told Nixon
that Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan had foreknowledge of the break-in,
was already lying about it in interviews, and would continue to do so before
a grand jury. The Watergate prosecutors, for whom Dean was a crucial witness,
had the March 13 tape, but did not enter it into evidence.
DEAN: Well, Chapin didn't know anything about the Watergate, and -- NIXON: You don't think so? DEAN: No. Absolutely not. NIXON: Did Strachan? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: He knew? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: About the Watergate? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: Well, then, Bob knew. He probably told Bob, then. He may not have. He may not have. DEAN: He was, he was judicious in what he, in what he relayed, and, uh, but Strachan is as tough as nails. I -- NIXON: What'll he say? Just go in and say he didn't know? DEAN: He'll go in and stonewall it and say, "I don't know anything about what you are talking about." He has already done it twice, as you know, in interviews.
This is significant since Strachan, a junior staff member, was essentially
reporting to Dean -- a fact that Dean failed to point out to Nixon. Although
Strachan was Haldeman's aide, when it came to matters like these, he
would, at Dean's request, deal directly with Dean.
"As to the subject of political intelligence-gathering," Strachan told the Senate Watergate
Committee,
"John Dean was designated as the White House contact for the Committee
to Re-elect the President." Thus, if Strachan knew anything about Watergate,
even after the fact, it seems to have been because Dean included him in
the flow of "intelligence."
On March 17, in another tape generally excluded from accounts of Watergate,
Dean told Nixon about the Ellsberg break-in. He also provided a long list of
people who he felt might have "vulnerabilities" concerning Watergate,
and included himself in that list.
NIXON: Now, you were saying too, ah, what really, ah, where the, this thing leads, I mean in terms of the vulnerabilities and so forth. It's your view the vulnerables are basically Mitchell, Colson, Haldeman, indirectly, possibly directly, and of course, the second level is, as far as the White House is concerned, Chapin. DEAN: And I'd say Dean, to a degree. NIXON: You? Why? DEAN: Well, because I've been all over this thing like a blanket. NIXON: I know, I know, but you know all about it, but you didn't, you were in it after the deed was done. DEAN: That's correct, that I have no foreknowledge . . . NIXON: Here's the whole point, here's the whole point. My point is that your problem is you, you have no problem. All the others that have participated in the God-damned thing, and therefore are potentially subject to criminal liability. You're not. That's the difference.
In the heavily publicized "cancer" speech of March 21, Dean essentially
reiterated what he had told Nixon previously, if in more detail. But he added
an important element -- one which would cause Nixon serious problems
when the "cancer" tape was played for the public: a request for one million
dollars in "hush money" for the burglars. Informed by Dean of a "continual
blackmail operation by Hunt and Liddy and the Cubans," Nixon asked how
much money they needed. Dean responded, "These people are going to cost
a million dollars over the next two years." There is debate as to whether
Nixon actually agreed with Dean's suggestion to pay money or merely ruminated
over it. He never did pay the money.
Dean's behavior did not appear to be that of a lawyer seeking to protect
his client, let alone advice appropriate to the conduct of the presidency.
E. Howard Hunt, a cold warrior
for the Central Intelligence Agency who left the spy service in disillusionment, joined the Nixon White House as a
secret agent and bungled the break-in at the Watergate that brought the president down in disgrace, died Tuesday in
Miami. He was 88.
His death, at North Shore
Medical Center, was caused by pneumonia, said his wife, Laura.
"This fellow Hunt," President
Richard M. Nixon muttered a few days after the June 1972 break-in, "he knows too damn much."
That was Howard Hunt's burden:
he was entrusted with too many secret missions. His career at the C.I.A. was destroyed by the disastrous invasion of
Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, and his time as Nixon's master of dirty tricks ended with his arrest in the
Watergate case. He served 33 months in prison for burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping and emerged a broken man.
"I am crushed by the failure
of my government to protect me and my family as in the past it has always done for its clandestine agents," Mr. Hunt
told the Senate committee investigating the Watergate affair in 1973, when he faced a provisional prison sentence of
35 years. "I cannot escape feeling that the country I have served for my entire life and which directed me to carry
out the Watergate entry is punishing me for doing the very things it trained and directed me to do."
He was
a high-spirited 30-year-old novelist who aspired to wealth and power when he joined the C.I.A. in 1949. He set out to
live the life he had imagined for himself, a glamorous career as a spy. But Mr. Hunt was never much of a spy. He did
not conduct classic espionage operations in order to gather information. His field was political warfare: dirty
tricks, sabotage and propaganda.
When he
left the C.I.A. in 1970 after a decidedly checkered career, he had become a world-weary cynic. Trading on the thin
veneer of a reputation in the clandestine service, he won a job as a $100-a-day "security consultant" at the Nixon
White House in 1971.
In that role, he conducted
break-ins and burglaries in the name of national security. He drew no distinction between orchestrating a black-bag
job at a foreign embassy in Mexico City and wiretapping the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the
Watergate complex. He recognized no lawful limit on presidential power, convinced that "when the president does it,"
as Nixon once said, "that means it is not illegal." Mr. Hunt and the nation found out otherwise.
Mr. Hunt was intelligent,
erudite, suave and loyal to his friends. But the record shows that he mishandled many of the tasks he received from
the C.I.A. and the White House. He was "totally self-absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody
around him," Samuel F. Hart, a retired United States ambassador who first met him in Uruguay in the 1950s, said in a
State Department oral history.
"As far as I could tell,
Howard went from one disaster to another," Mr. Hart said, "until he hit Watergate."
Everette Howard Hunt Jr. was
born in Hamburg, N.Y., on Oct. 9, 1918, the son of a lawyer and a classically trained pianist who played church
organ. He graduated from Brown University in June 1940 and entered the United States Naval Academy as a midshipman in
February 1941.
He worked as a wartime
intelligence officer in China, a postwar spokesman for the Marshall Plan in Paris and a screenwriter in Hollywood.
Warner Brothers had just bought his fourth novel, "Bimini Run," a thriller set in the Caribbean, when he joined the
fledgling C.I.A. in April 1949.
Mr. Hunt was immediately
assigned to train C.I.A. recruits in political and psychological warfare, fields in which he was a rank amateur, like
most of his colleagues. He moved to Mexico City, where he became chief of station in 1950. He brought along another
rookie C.I.A. officer, William F. Buckley Jr., later a prominent conservative author and publisher, who became
godfather and guardian to the four children of Mr. Hunt and his wife, the former Dorothy L. Wetzel.
Photo
E. Howard Hunt in 1973.
Credit
Mike Lien/The New York
Times
In 1954, Mr. Hunt helped plan
the covert operation that overthrew the elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz. "What we wanted to do was to
have a terror campaign," Mr. Hunt said in a CNN documentary on the cold war, "to terrify Arbenz particularly, to
terrify his troops." Though the operation succeeded, it ushered in 40 years of military repression in Guatemala.
By the
time of the coup, Mr. Hunt had been removed from responsibility. He moved on to uneventful stints in Japan and
Uruguay. Not until 1960 was Mr. Hunt involved in an operation that changed history.
The C.I.A. had received orders
from both President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his successor, President John F. Kennedy, to alter or abolish the
revolutionary government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mr. Hunt's assignment was to create a provisional Cuban government
that would be ready to take power once the C.I.A.'s cadre of Cuban shock troops invaded the island. He fared no
better than the paramilitary planners who had vowed to defeat Mr. Castro's 60,000-man army with a 1,500-strong
brigade.
The careers of the American
intelligence officers who planned and executed the Bay of Pigs debacle in April 1961 were damaged or destroyed, as
was the C.I.A.'s reputation for derring-do. Mr. Hunt spent most of the 1960s carrying out desultory propaganda tasks
at the agency, among them running news services and subsidizing books that fell stillborn from the press.
He funneled his talent into
writing paperback spy novels. His works followed a formula of sex and intrigue but offered flashes of insight. "We
become lawless in a struggle for the rule of law -- semi-outlaws who risk their lives to put down the savagery of
others," says the author's alter ego, Peter Ward, in the novel "Hazardous Duty."
He retired from the C.I.A. in
1970 and secured a job with an agency-connected public relations firm in Washington. Then, a year later, came a call
from the White House. A fellow Brown alumnus, Charles W. Colson, special counsel to President Nixon, hired Mr. Hunt
to carry out acts of political warfare. Within weeks, Mr. Hunt was in charge of a subterranean department of dirty
tricks.
He went back to C.I.A.
headquarters, requesting false identification, a red wig, a voice-altering device and a tiny camera. He then
burglarized the Beverly Hills office of a psychiatrist treating Dr. Daniel J. Ellsberg, a former national-security
aide who had leaked a copy of the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War, to The New York Times.
Mr. Hunt was looking for information to discredit Mr. Ellsberg. When the break-in became public knowledge two years
later, the federal case against Mr. Ellsberg on charges of leaking classified information was dismissed.
Mr. Hunt, in league with
another recently retired C.I.A. officer and four Cuban Bay of Pigs veterans, then led a break-in at the offices of
the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex to bug the telephone lines. The job was botched, and the
team went in again to remove the taps. The burglars were arrested on the night of June 17, 1972. One had Mr. Hunt's
name and a White House telephone number in his address book, a classic failure of espionage tradecraft that proved
the first thread of the web that ensnarled the president.
The
final blow that drove Nixon from office was one of the secret White House recordings he made -- the "smoking gun" tape
-- in which he vowed to order the C.I.A. to shut down the federal investigation of the Watergate break-in on spurious
national-security grounds. By the time Nixon resigned in August 1974, Mr. Hunt was a federal prisoner.
His life was in ruins: his
wife had been killed in a plane crash in 1972, his legal fees approached $1 million, he had suffered a stroke, and
whatever illusions he once had that his government would protect him were shattered. Standing before the judge who
imprisoned him, he said he was "alone, nearly friendless, ridiculed, disgraced, destroyed as a man."
Freed from prison just before
his 60th birthday, Mr. Hunt moved to Miami, where he met and married his second wife, Laura, a schoolteacher, and
started a second family. Besides his wife, he is survived by the two daughters and two sons from his first marriage:
Lisa Hunt of Las Vegas, Kevan Hunt Spence of Pioneer, Calif., Howard St. John Hunt of Eureka, Calif., and David Hunt
of Los Angeles; two children from his second marriage, Austin and Hollis, both of Miami; seven grandchildren; and
three great-grandchildren.
Mr. Hunt's last book,
"American Spy: My Secret History in the C.I.A., Watergate and Beyond," written with Greg Aunapu, is to be published
on March 16 with a foreword by his old friend William F. Buckley Jr.
Late in life, he said he had no
regrets, beyond the Bay of Pigs.
According to Buckley's son, Christopher, Hunt informed Buckley that, were he to die, Buckley
would be contacted by a person he did not know who had a key to a safe deposit box, which the
two of them would open together. When Christopher asked his father what the box might have
contained, Buckley replied, "I don't know exactly, but it could theoretically involve
information that could lead to the impeachment of the president of the United States." He felt
bound to keep confidential what he knew.
H oward Hunt and Frank Sturgis became notorious in 1972 with the start of the Watergate
scandal. Both men plead guilty on a variety of charges in January of 1973.
Frank Sturgis was arrested by police at the Democratic party headquarters on the sixth floor
of Watergate. He was found with four other men, wearing rubber surgical gloves, unarmed, and
carrying extensive photographic equipment and electronic surveillance devices. He was
officially charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other
conversations. Sturgis was also apart of the Miami Cuban exile community and involved in
various "adventures" relating to Cuba which he believed were organized and financed by the
CIA.
E. Howard Hunt was one of the "plumbers" and a former White House aid during the Watergate
scandal. He was directly linked to Sturgis and the other four men that broke into Watergate. He
was charged with burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. He served 33 months. Hunt was also a
former employee of the CIA, serving from 1949-1970. He typically performed work relating to
propaganda operations in foreign countries.
To say this punched all kinds of buttons among JFK conspiracy theorists would be an
understatement.
In no time flat the theorists concluded that Hunt and Sturgis were involved in the death of
JFK. It was claimed that they were two of the three tramps photographed on the day of the
assassination. By 1974, when the Rockefeller
Commission was established to investigate the domestic activities of the CIA, Hunt and
Sturgis were chief suspects in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The following section from
the Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United
States outlines the Commission's conclusions.
... ... ...
B. The Theory That the CIA Had Relationships With Lee Harvey Oswald and
Jack Ruby The second theory advanced in support of allegations of CIA participation in the
assassination of President Kennedy is that various links existed between the CIA, Oswald and
Ruby. Lee Harvey Oswald was found by the Warren Commission to be the person who assassinated
the President. Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald two days after the President's assassination.
There is no credible evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was ever employed
by the CIA or ever acted for the CIA in any capacity whatever, either directly or
indirectly.
Testimony was offered purporting to show CIA relationships with Oswald and Ruby. It was
stated, for example, the E. Howard Hunt, as an employee of the CIA, engaged in political
activity with elements of the anti-Castro Cuban community in the United States on behalf of the
CIA prior to the Bay of Pigs operation in April 1961. In connection with those duties, it was
further alleged that Hunt was instrumental in organizing the Cuban Revolutionary Council and
that the Cuban Revolutionary Council had an office in New Orleans. Finally, it was claimed that
Lee Harvey Oswald lived in New Orleans from April to September 1963, and that a pamphlet
prepared and distributed by Oswald on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee during that
period indicated that the office of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was situated in building
which was also the address of the New Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.
(4)
It was therefore implied that Hunt could have had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in
New Orleans during the spring or summer of 1963. No evidence was presented that Hunt ever met
Oswald, or that he was ever in New Orleans in 1963, or that he had any contact with any New
Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.
Hunt's employment record with the CIA indicated that he had no duties involving contacts
with Cuban exile elements or organizations inside or outside the United States after the early
months of 1961. This was more that two years before Oswald went to New Orleans in April 1963
and more than a year before Oswald returned to the United States from the Soviet Union, where
he had lived for almost three years.
An example of the testimony relating to an alleged relationship between the CIA and Jack
Ruby consisted of a statement that Frank Sturgis was engaged in a series of revolutionary
activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in the 1950's and 1960's and that the CIA
also sponsored and organized anti-Castro activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in
1959 and the early 1960's.
It was further stated that someone once reported to the FBI that Jack Ruby had engaged in
supplying arms to persons in Cuba in the early 1950's in association with a former Cuban
President, Carlos Prio, and that Frank Sturgis also had connections with Carlos Prio during the
1950's and 1960's.
In addition, it was alleged that Frank Sturgis was at one time (before he escaped from Cuba
in June 1959) a director of gambling and gaming establishments in Havana for the Castro
government, and that in August or September, 1959, Jack Ruby made a trip to Havana at the
invitation of a friend who had interests in gambling establishments in Cuba and the United
States.
Moreover, both Sturgis and Ruby were alleged to have had connections with underground
figures who had interests in the United States and Cuba.
From this group of allegations, the witness inferred that Sturgis and Ruby could have
met and known each other--although no actual evidence was presented to show that Ruby or
Sturgis ever met each other.
Even if the individual items contained in the foregoing recitations were assumed to be true,
it was concluded that the inferences drawn must be considered farfetched speculation insofar as
they purport to show a connection between the CIA and either Oswald or Ruby.
Even in absence of denials by living persons that such a connection existed, no weight could
be assigned to such testimony. Moreover, Sturgis was never an employee or agent of the CIA.
A witness, a telephone caller, and a mail correspondent tendered additional information of
the same nature. None of it was more than a strained effort to draw inferences of conspiracy
from the facts which would not fairly support the inferences. A CIA involvement in the
assassination was implied by the witness, for example, from the fact that the Mayor of Dallas
at that time was a brother of a CIA official who had been involved in the planning of the Bay
of Pigs operation in Cuba several years previously, and from the fact that President Kennedy
reportedly blamed the CIA for the Bay of Pigs failure.
The same witness testified that E. Howard Hunt was Acting Chief of a CIA station in Mexico
City in 1963, implying that he could have had contact with Oswald when Oswald visited
Mexico City in September 1963. Hunt's service in Mexico City, however, was twelve years
earlier--in 1950 and 1951--and his only other CIA duty in Mexico covered only a few weeks in
1960. At no time was he ever the Chief, or Acting Chief, of a CIA station in Mexico City.
Hunt and Sturgis categorically denied that they had ever met or known Oswald or Ruby. They
further denied that they ever had any connection whatever with either Oswald or Ruby.
Conclusions
Numerous allegations have been made that the CIA participated in the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy. The Commission staff investigated these allegations. On the basis of
the staff's investigation, the Commission concluded there was no credible evidence of any CIA
involvement.
Confession of Howard HuntLegendary
CIA spy and convicted Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt.
Before his death in January 2007, CIA master spy and convicted Watergate conspirator Howard
Hunt confessed to being peripherally involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and
named several other participants.
In notes and conversations with his son Saint John, and in an audiotape he created in 2004 to be played
after his death, Hunt described being invited into the "big event" at a Miami safehouse in
1963. Others named in the plot:
Frank Sturgis , an anti-Castro paramilitary closely associated with Hunt. Sturgis
was one of the Watergate burglars.
David Morales , Chief of Operations at the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami. Morales
himself told a few close associates of his involvement.
David Phillips , CIA propaganda specialist and later Chief of Western Hemisphere
Division. Phillips was assigned to Mexico City during the mysterious trip of Lee Harvey
Oswald, or someone using his name, to that city in the fall of 1963.
Antonio Veciana , Cuban exile leader of Alpha 66. Veciana told the HSCA that a
"Maurice Bishop," thought by many to be Phillips, pointed out Lee Harvey Oswald to him.
William Harvey , a CIA officer who ran the ZR/RIFLE "executive action" program.
Harvey fell out of favor with the Kennedys when he sent sabotage teams into Cuba during the
1962 Missile Crisis.
Cord Meyer , a high-level CIA officer whose ex-wife Mary Meyer was having an
affair with JFK.
French Gunman Grassy Knoll. Hunt's chart included an unnamed French hit man on the
infamous grassy knoll.
Lyndon Johnson , Vice-President.
Hunt says he declined active participation but did have a "benchwarmer" role in the plot. In
the tape excerpt made available so far, Hunt made no claims which would prove his allegations.
However, the people he names have all been suspects in the assassination for some time, and
many of them worked closely together in anti-Castro operations.
In the "smoking gun" tape which helped drive him from office, President Richard Nixon said
this of Hunt: "You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things..." He then instructed
Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman to take a message to CIA Director Richard Helms, asking Helms to
intervene in the FBI's early Watergate investigation because "the President believes that it is
going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." In his book The Ends of Power ,
Haldeman described Helms' reaction: "Turmoil in the room. Helms gripping the arms of his chair
leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern
about the Bay of Pigs'." Haldeman came to believe that the "Bay of Pigs" referred to the
Kennedy assassination.
Hunt's story has been challenged due to its lack of corroboration, its internal
inconsistencies and Hunt's failure to provide any details from his activities in 1963 which
would support it.
Some will accept Hunt's confession as the truth. For others, Hunt's naming of LBJ at the top
of the plot will be seen as a bit of "spin" to present the assassination as a "rogue
operation," deflecting attention from higher-level sponsors within the government. For that
matter, Hunt was not necessarily in a position to know the ultimate authors of the
conspiracy.
For others, the confession will be dismissed, seen as a parting gift to a ne'er-do-well son
or perhaps a "last laugh" on America from a man who hated Kennedy with a passion.
"... Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't surveilling the West. ..."
"... What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged. Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the mob war. ..."
"... As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well, but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Media and social media tycoons - all could be taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic. ..."
"... I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples. ..."
Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to
keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled
poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their
job if they weren't surveilling the West.
Victoria Nuland's EU rant was released. Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary
Clinton.
What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged.
Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch
hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the
upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the
mob war.
NemesisCalling , Dec 26, 2017 4:39:00 PM |
36karlof1 , Dec 26, 2017 4:42:57 PM |
37
Name of Me | Dec 26, 2017 12:13:28 PM | 2
The US Government was controlling media well before the CIA's creation. Please take a
little time to learn about George Seldes whose 1929 book You Can't
Print That!: The Truth Behind the News, 1918–1928 is vastly informative with
original copies easy to find under $15, or even online through this link . Indeed,
numerous works of his are digitized. I.F. Stone followed in Seldes's footsteps, and the
website with his collected writings is here . Perhaps one of the least known
episodes of US Government media manipulation was related to the atomic bomb crimes, an event
nearly 100% airbrushed from history books, and of course the ongoing attempt to cover up one
of the biggest crimes of all time.
My mention of media manipulation by the US Government wouldn't be complete without
including the 100% blackout that was to apply to the discussions in Philadelphia that led to
the 1787 Constitution -- the document that elevated the "natural aristocracy" into the
catbird seat ensuring their control of the federal government until it's overthrown via
revolution.
Fortunately, Madison and others kept copious notes that were eventually published long
after the fate of Commoners was sealed, so we know that Aristocracy viewed its contemporary
deplorables no differently than how HRC and today's 1% view them/us.
Americans and much of the rest of the world are the target of an immense psyop . Propaganda
techniques going back to Bernay and WWI have been expanded on and perfected. Infiltration and
control is lot limited to the print media and TV news stations but also , hollywood movies/TV
shows , academia (history, economics, etc) , book publishing, blogs and social media. The
last few bastions of truth will be eliminated with the end of net neutrality.
As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well,
but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission
Accomplished.
"We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to
let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in
foreign countries. One hand will wash the other."
Something I have often thought about. Media and social media tycoons - all could be
taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work
with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic.
I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror. ..."
"... Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys." ..."
"... Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no longer represents your interests? Look no further. ..."
Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized
Crime, may prove to be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their consequences
at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable framework by which Mr. Valentine's path
led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William
Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom."
By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population
of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual
war against terror.
Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that
wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards
of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured
the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are
'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."
Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the Wolf; The Strength of the Pack;
The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.
If you want the inside scoop on the CIA and it's criminal past; this is the book. Additionally, why the Phoenix Program is
pertinent for our own times. This book connects the dots.
If you have been wondering why Homeland Security has fusion centers; why the USA Anti-Patriot Act, NDAA and Rex 84 have been
passed by Congress; you will get your answer here.
A book every intelligent American needs to read and place in a prominent place in their library. Oh, and don't forget after
you read it; spread the word !!! (this book is based upon actual face to face interviews and documents)
Run, don't walk, and get yourself a copy of this book. The author has been warning us for decades about the clear and present
danger that is the CIA I was unaware of Valentine's work for most of those years, perhaps because our media outlets (even the
"anti-establishment" ones like Democracy Now and The Intercept) have been compromised. Valentine's work has been suppressed since
his ground-breaking book on the Phoenix Program.
Not that I didn't know anything about the sordid history. I knew about MK-Ultra, some of the agency's drug running and empire-building
exploits. This work goes much deeper and paints a much bigger picture. The extent of the agency's influence is much greater than
I had imagined.
This is not another history book about dirty tricks. It is not just about our insane foreign policy and empire building. The
cancer of corruption, of outright crime, has metastasized into every agency of the government right here in the US itself. Those
dirty tricks and crimes have become domestic policy- in fusion centers and Homeland Security, in the militarization of local police
and in Congress, from Wall Street to Main Street. Border Patrol, the DEA, Justice and State have all been compromised.
Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no
longer represents your interests? Look no further.
The problem is now. We are the new targets.
Read it and weep, but for God's sake, please read it.
A highly informative and comprehensive book, and a scathing, fearless indictment of government corruption.
I cannot overstate it's importance.
I just picked up this book and have not read it yet--but I am writing this to CORRECT THE RECORD regarding very basic information.
There are 446 PAGES (not 286, as listed above). 160 Pages is a big difference--obviously, QUALITY is more important than quantity--but
I do feel the listing needs be corrected.
The "Inside Look" feature is also cutting off the last 9 chapters of the book, which are as follows:
Chapter 16: Major General Bruce Lawlor: From CIA Officer in Vietnam to Homeland Security Honcho
Chapter 17: Homeland Security: The Phoenix Comes Home to Roost
PART IV: MANUFACTURING COMPLICITY: SHAPING THE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW
Chapter 18: Fragging Bob Kerrey: The CIA and the Need for a War Crimes Tribunal
Chapter 19: Top Secret America Shadow Reward System
Chapter 20: How Government Tries to Mess with Your Mind
Chapter 21: Disguising Obama's Dirty War
Chapter 22: Parallels of Conquest, Past and Present
Chapter 23: Propaganda as Terrorism
Chapter 24: The War on Terror as the Greatest Covert Op Ever
This is a devastating and must-read study of the social and political calamity created by the CIA over the last sixty years.
The portrait shows the criminal character of the agency and finally of the government it is said to serve. The portrait is a double
shock because it shows not just a sordid corruption but a malevolent 'dark side' mafia-style corruption of american civilization
and government. That the CIA controls the drug trade is not the least of the stunning revelations of this history.
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded
by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as
in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious
electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful
protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect
Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected
president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and
the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent
foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years
of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups
were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political,
administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction
between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The
US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected
and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional
ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize
the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal
gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016
election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect
even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral
College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected
president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful
elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations
with Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald
Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony
documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the
major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the
'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered
to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British
official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect.
Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'état.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect.
For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened
the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's
policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US
president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate
mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward
an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the
atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous
organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their
drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
http://petras.lahaine.org/
"... The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden. ..."
"... In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post . ..."
"... In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive. ..."
"... In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA. ..."
"... The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions" ..."
"... It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue. ..."
"... The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump. ..."
"... The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story, insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news story will continue indefinitely. ..."
"... What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e. there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard, rather than soft, landing near the end of the road. ..."
The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence
services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.
In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents
from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists,
Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the
Washington Post . Some of those documents were published by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian , others by Barton
Gellman in the Washington Post . Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of
NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight.
In July 2013 the Guardian was
forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive.
In August 2013 Jeff Bezos
bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon,
had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they
invested
in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon
signed a $600 million
deal to provide computing services for the CIA.
In October 2013 Pierre Omidyar, the owner of Ebay, founded
First Look Media and hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura
Poitras. The total planned investment was said to be $250 million. It took up to February 2014 until the new organization launched
its first site, the Intercept . Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site.
Its management is
said to be chaotic . It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet. Omidyar
has worked,
together with the U.S. government, to force regime change onto Ukraine. He had
strong ties with the Obama administration.
Snowden had copies of some
20,000 to 58,000 NSA files . Only 1,182 have been
published . Bezos and Omidyar obviously helped the NSA to keep more than 95% of the Snowden archive away from the public. The
Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services
and the Obama administration.
The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is
estimated to own a shameful
$90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use
of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been
a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is
one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".
It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the
NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue.
The Interceptburned
a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It
smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an (intentional?) mistranslation of one of his speeches. It additionally
hired a Syrian supporter of the CIA's "regime change by Jihadis" in Syria. Despite its
pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from
U.S. policies.
The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts
of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded"
with Trump.
Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them.
In
Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who
published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim
up. Whatever that writer
wrote (see
list at end) was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.S. election. The piece then dives into various cyber-operations
against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed.
A
second story in the paper today is based on "a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post." It claims that the Russian
military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally
removed from his office in a U.S. regime change
operation . What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist
regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014,
who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of
bovine excrement.
An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell
and Mike Rogers. Morell had hoped to become CIA boss under a President Hillary Clinton. The op-ed (which includes a serious misunderstanding
of "deterrence") asserts that
Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States :
Russia's information operations tactics since the election are more numerous than can be listed here . But to get a sense of the
breadth of Russian activity, consider the messaging spread by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter, which cybersecurity and disinformation
experts have tracked as part of the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter
hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote
is "#merrychristmas".
When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not
even one plausible operation they could cite. Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures
against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit
of weapon producers and U.S. influence in Europe.
If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet? Surely he would
have said something about the Intercept and Greenwald keeping important stories buried by now. Yet, as far as I can tell, he has
a good relationship with Greenwald. I find it hard to believe hat a man who literally gave up everything he had in life to leak
important docs would remain silent for so long about a publishing cover up. I don't really like the Intercept and I think your
analysis of its content is accurate, but I do find it hard to believe that the NSA docs were "bought" back by the CIA.
If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet?
_____________________________________________________
My understanding is that early on, Snowden placed his trove of documents in the exclusive care of Glenn Greenwald and his associates.
Although Snowden has since become a public figure in his own right, and his opinions on state-security events and issues are solicited,
as far as I know Snowden has no direct responsibility for managing the material he downloaded.
I haven't followed Snowden closely enough to know how familiar he may be with the contents of the reported "20,000 to 58,000
NSA files" turned over to GG/Omidyar. Snowden presumably took pains to acquire items of interest in his cache as he accumulated
classified material, but even if he has extraordinary powers of recall he may not remember precisely what remains unreleased.
FWIW, I was troubled from the first by one of the mainstays of GG's defense, or rationale, when it became clear that he was
the principal, and perhaps sole, executive "curator" of the Snowden material. In order to reassure and placate nervous "patriots"--
and GG calls himself a "patriot"-- he repeatedly emphasized that great care was being taken to vet the leaked information before
releasing it.
GG's role as whistleblower Snowden's enabler and facilitator was generally hailed uncritically by progressive-liberals and
civil-liberties advocates, to a point where public statements that should've raised skeptical doubts and questions were generally
passively accepted by complacent admirers.
Specifically, my crap detectors signaled "red alert" early on, when Greenwald (still affiliated with "The Guardian", IIRC)
took great pains to announce that his team was working closely with the US/UK governments to vet and screen Snowden's material
before releasing any of it; GG repeatedly asserted that he was reviewing the material with the relevant state-security agencies
to ensure that none of the released material would compromise or jeopardize government operatives and/or national security.
WTF? Bad enough that Greenwald was requiring the world to exclusively trust his judgment in deciding what should be released
and what shouldn't. He was also making it clear that he wasn't exactly committed to disclosing "the worst" of the material "though
the heavens fall".
In effect, as GG was telling the world that he could be trusted to manage the leaked information responsibly, he was also telling
the world that it simply had to trust his judgment in this crucial role.
To me, there was clearly a subliminal message for both Western authorities and the public: don't worry, we're conscientious,
patriotic leak-masters. We're not going to irresponsibly disclose anything too radical, or politically/socially destabilizing.
GG and the Omidyar Group have set themselves up as an independent "brand" in the new field of whistleblower/hacker impresario
and leak-broker.
Like only buying NFL-approved merchandise, or fox-approved eggs, the public is being encouraged to only buy (into) Intercept-approved
Snowden Leaks™. It's a going concern, which lends itself much more to the "modified limited hangout" approach than freely tossing
all the biggest eggs out of the basket.
GG found an opportunity to augment his rising career as a self-made investigative journalist and civil-liberties advocate.
Now he's sitting pretty, the celebrity point man for a lucrative modified limited hangout enterprise. What is wrong with this
picture?
@16 I just see no evidence of that aside from fitting the narrative of people who are convinced of a cover up in leaked docs.
Moreover, there is no way Russia would continue to offer Snowden asylum if he was gov agent. I'm sure Russian intelligence did
a very thorough background check on him.
@17 that's simply not true. He regularly tweets, gives online talks and publishes on his own. He has not used either Poitras
or Greenwald as a means of communication for years. And he has never dropped a single hint of being disappointed or frustrated
with how documents and info was published.
It just seems so implausible given the total lack of any sign of Snowden's dissatisfaction.
The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the
Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but
to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times,
Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story,
insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news
story will continue indefinitely.
What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e.
there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be
damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard,
rather than soft, landing near the end of the road.
G @ 1 and 18: My understanding is that Edward Snowden has been advised (warned?) by the Russian government or his lawyer in Moscow
not to reveal any more than he has said so far. The asylum Moscow has offered him may be dependent on his keeping discreet. That
may include not saying much about The Intercept, in case his communications are followed by the NSA or any other of the various
US intel agencies which could lead to their tracking his physical movements in Russia and enable any US-connected agent or agency
(including one based in Russia) to trace him, arrest him or kill him, and cover up and frame the seizure or murder in such a way
as to place suspicion or blame on the Russian government or on local criminal elements in Russia.
I believe that Snowden does have a job in Russia and possibly this job does not permit him the time to say any more than what
he currently tweets or says online.
There is nothing in MoA's article to suggest that Glenn Greenwald is deliberately burying stories in The Intercept. B has said
that its management is chaotic which could suggest among other things that Greenwald himself is dissatisfied with its current
operation.
@21 I'm not disputing that moneyed interests might have been leaned on by the CIA to stop publishing sensitive info. What I'm
disputing is the idea that people like Greenwald have deliberately with-held information that is in the public interest. I doubt
that, regardless of the strength of the Intercept as a publication.
@25 What interest would the Russian gov have in helping protect NSA? I assume Russia loves the idea of the US Intel agencies
being embarrassed. Snowden speaks his mind about plenty of domestic and international events in US. I have never seen him act
like he's being censored.
G @ 25: Moscow would have no interest in helping protect the NSA or any other US intel agency. The Russians would have advised
Snowden not to say more than he has said so far, not because they are interested in helping the NSA but because they can only
protect him as long as he is discreet and does not try to say or publish any more that would jeopardise his safety or give Washington
an excuse to pressure Moscow to extradite him back to the US. That would include placing more sanctions on Russia until Snowden
is given up.
There is the possibility also that Snowden trusts (or trusted) Greenwald to know what to do with the NSA documents. Perhaps
that trust was naively placed - we do not know.
b, a big exposition of facts, rich in links to more facts.
This is important material for all to understand.
Snowden is "the squirrel over there!" A distraction turned into a hope.
Compared to Assange, who is being slow-martyred in captivity, Snowden is a boy playing with gadgets.
Why did not Snowden make certain a copy of his theft went to Wikileaks? That would have been insurance.
Since he did not, it all could be just a distraction.
What is known about the Snowden affair is we received proof of what we knew. Not much else. For those who didn't know, they
received news.
And ever since, the shape of things from the Deep State/Shadow Government/IC has been lies and warmongering against American freedoms
and world cooperation among nations.
Fascism is corporate + the police state. The US government is a pure fascist tyranny that also protects the Empire and Global
Hegemony.
We connect the dots and it's always the same picture. It was this way in the 60s,70s,80s,90s, 00s, and this forlorn decade.
Fascism more bold each decade. Billionaires and millionaires have always been in the mix.
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
Back in August of 2016, which feels like
millions of years ago in terms of everything that's happened in American politics since that time, Glenn
Greenwald published an article in The Intercept titled "
Democrats'
Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S.
". I took note of the
article because I look up to Greenwald, but because of my focus on the US presidential election I couldn't
really see the looming terror on the horizon that he was warning of at the time.
After the election I started getting comments on my
anti-Democratic establishment articles accusing them of being "Kremlin propaganda", and I had no idea how to
respond to this. I'm an Australian mother who started doing political commentary last year because I fell in
love with Bernie Sanders; I've never been to Russia, I've never been involved with Russia, and at that point my
interest in Russia amounted to an affection for Regina Spektor, those cool fur hats and the movie
Spies Like Us
. I'd certainly never in my life been accused of writing
propaganda.
Now these comments have become a daily
occurrence. I make unapologetically frequent use of social media blocking features, but I still get accused of
being a Kremlin propagandist multiple times a day for my skepticism of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and my
criticism of the Democratic party.
And now pro-establishment outlets are starting to
publish attack editorials full of outright lies about me. Rantt News ran a
hit piece
on me last month which
reported
completely falsely that I'm a Russian shill hired "to spread alternative facts and false
equivalencies in order to divide leftists and ensure Trump, Ryan, their cabal of billionaires, and their
newfound Russian friends all continue to enjoy power at the expense of your civil rights." To substantiate his
claim the author cited two articles of mine that I'd written for the Melbourne site Newslogue which were then
republished
without my permission by a website called Russia Insider, with whom I have never had contact
apart from my recent request that they remove the articles.
As I pointed out in
my response to the Rantt smear piece
, Russia Insider very clearly labels those articles as copies that it
took from elsewhere. Here is a screenshot from the
first one
, which very plainly labels the article as having come from Newslogue:
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government ..."
"... The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert). ..."
"... That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia. ..."
The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in
full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering. Put aside all the
obvious items such as, zero evidence, US elections are already rigged by the US elites before
a single vote is cast, the US has been tampering in just about every countries elections for
decades overtly and covertly- and just consider the more recent attempt BY THE US to tamper
in Russian elections through the ever-handy NED.
With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his
chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian
political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics.
Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government
The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully
funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony
alert).
That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists
should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics
(another irony alert) of Russia.
But yes, of course, let's Call it Democracy and have some pretend outrage in the US
Propaganda Sector where the US Chattering Classes are aghast that Russia won't allow the NED
to interfere in it's elections.
Sorry I can't help with your questions, but I concur with your hunches about the creation
of Intercept.
Your reference to Intercept being set up "to block the inquiry into or exposure of
special access Intel operations during or prior to 9/11 which would blow up entirely the
official narrative of that epochal event" touches a nerve.
I was a regular reader and commenter at Glenn Greenwald's (GG) "Unclaimed Territory" blog,
which was absorbed into the progressive-liberal lite Salon site. I even had a few brief but
cordial e-mail exchanges with GG, since I diligently sent him (requested) private e-mail
alerts to grammatical and syntactic errors in his prolific posts.
I sympathized with GG's early attempts to deal fairly with aggressive 9/11 Truthers
monopolizing the comments; he personally moderated, and participated in, his comments
threads. At first, GG's stance was "agnostic" towards 9/11 "Truther" theories, but he
reasonably insisted that 9/11-related comments not be allowed to hijack every discussion.
But GG himself was not much of a 9/11 skeptic, and I soured on GG when he proved to be
what I call a "Trutherphobe".
Before long, he became openly censorious and began removing both comments and commenters
who insisted on mentioning 9/11, even if the 9/11 reference was germane to the topic. (Not
me; I knew better than to push his buttons.) Also, GG adopted, or independently reached, what
I call the "Chomsky Bubble" stance-- essentially, a sophisticated rationalization that
amounts to "nothing to see here, move along."
Eventually, despite his efforts to seem nominally open-minded towards 9/11 skeptics, it
became clear that to GG, pursuing 9/11 truth was both a distraction and a nuisance. 9/11
truth is simply not part of GG's agenda.
When GG acquired apparently exclusive stewardship of the Snowden trove, one of my first
thoughts was, "If there's anything in Snowden's documents that contradict or cast doubt upon
the official 9/11 narrative, Glenn will be careful to put it on the bottom of the pile and
keep it there." I still believe this.
It's too late to blithely conclude "In short...", but all this to say that if you're
correct, GG is just the person to put in charge of a modified limited hangout
operation that, in part, suppresses 9/11 inquiry and truth.
"... I have always been flabbergasted about the naivety of the general public in regards to the abilities, capabilities and determination of the so called 'establishment' - aka Plutocracy, when it comes to the choice of means to achieve their psychopathic goals. What is out of reach, or undoable to those that willingly accept the death of millions of innocent people in the ME and the world over? ..."
"... The utter destruction of sovereign Nations that don't fall in line? Organizing coup d'etats like local fundraisers for soup kitchens? Looking at the track record of the American establishment, nothing, absolutely nothing is ever off the table. ..."
"... I'm always wary of talk about limited hangouts. A case can usually be made that such talk is itself intended for the same purpose - to lull the recipient into despair and passivity. ..."
"... And it WAS a secret weapon. It took a long time for this to become obvious. We see the media all along has been completely mediocre, but since it has long given wall-to-wall coverage, it never had to get very good in order to send the daily propaganda message. Come the Internet, everyone sees how sloppy the media's work is. But does this raise the quality of the media lies? It seems not - the opposite in fact, the readers get far smarter than the writers. ..."
"... The greatest trick the Devil pulled was not convincing the world he didn't exist, it was convincing the world that evil was clever, when in fact it's very mediocre. Evil performs badly. It will continue to perform badly. It can be resisted and overcome. This takes time. ..."
Snowden went to established journalists because he wanted the story to get out. He also
wanted them to be cautious and conservative, to redact whatever seemed damaging to operations
or his country.
In my opinion, what the journalists did worked. And Snowden destroyed his own access to
the materials.
My guess - purely a guess - is that Snowden was, and remains, quite satisfied with what
happened and what got published. He never wanted operational FACTS to get out so much as he
wanted the SCALE of what the US was doing to get out. In this matter, I'd call his entire
effort a tremendous success.
Snowden's face and story went around the world and shook things up. Paradigms came
crashing down. In my own personal case, the Snowden material showed me the scale of US
adventurism, and the vast audacity of its criminality. It made it clear, in philosophical
terms rather than evidentiary terms, that 9/11 could easily be an inside job. It took a
change in the paradigms of the scale of corruption to open up that possibility for me. I'm
sure it's done similar things for millions of people. Snowden was one of the few events I can
think of that actually played out in the mainstream before anyone figured out how to shut it
down - and the genie was out of the bottle.
We don't know what we've lost by not having the missing pages released. But I find it hard
to think they could change paradigms any more than has already happened. There's a
diminishing return here. Wikileaks publishes troves of material, but what paradigms get
changed unless it plays in the mainstream? Manning with the video of the mercs shooting the
civilians was the last time this happened, I think.
When it comes to seeing what's behind the curtain - which is precisely what the
information war is about - the words and the details of the stories matter far less than the
way that people's thinking gets changed.
~~
At Christmas I socialized with ordinary people. I learned that they believe the Russians
interfered in the US election, and planted Trump. Bummer, but on the other hand, I could talk
to everyone about the NSA getting my Facebook feed or my phone data, and there's full
agreement, or at least no disagreement.
Snowden went into the culture. Russiagate is still playing out, and we don't yet know who
will be the big loser in the belief system of the culture. I'm still willing to bet it's the
mainstream media.
~~
Putin has said that Snowden didn't reveal anything that Russian intelligence didn't
already know. Russia didn't want to harbor Snowden, but the US State Department forced the
issue by revoking his passport while he was in the air terminal in Russia. The current asylum
granted is for a 3-year period. I see no reason to make any change in this. It will be
reviewed when it expires, and if Snowden is still a stateless political refugee, which seems
very likely, than I imagine it will be renewed. Russia is a nation of laws.
Russia has little to do with Snowden. And even less to do with the US elections. Russia
doesn't want confrontation, between anyone. Russia wants a world of no conflict, and every
action it takes pursues this end. Russia will easily forego a cheap victory in order to gain
a valuable cessation of hostilities. I believe Putin when he says that who won the US
election was of no great importance to Russia - they would deal with whomever was there.
It's always important to understand that Russia is not playing a zero-sum game, nor is she
playing to "win" against any other nation in geopolitics. Russia wins when other nations stop
fighting. The lat thing she wants to do is interfere with the internal order of other
countries. But she is rooting for the orderliness of each country.
Thanks for your nice long comment and its excellent observations. And Happy Holidays since
I haven't wished them on you yet this year!
For me, Snowden's revelations were nothing new as I had already learned about Project Echelon , which by the end
of the 1980s was global girding and mostly intent on industrial espionage as this summary at
the link informs:
"The ECHELON program was created in the late 1960s to monitor the military and diplomatic
communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War, and was
formally established in 1971.[5][6]
"By the end of the 20th century, the system referred to as "ECHELON" had allegedly evolved
beyond its military and diplomatic origins, to also become ' a global system for the
interception of private and commercial communications' (mass surveillance and industrial
espionage)."
Indeed, the extent of Echelon was available to the public--sort of--but there were very
few publications about it, although that changed as the internet grew during the 1990s. So
for me, Snowden's actions becoming headline news was more important than the content of his
revelations as the slumbering public got slapped upside its collective head.
Another historical factoid of interest is FDR's meeting with media CEOs a few days prior
to 7 Dec 1941, of which no transcript exists to my knowledge, although what was said can be
inferred by subsequent actions by all the actors involved--there was no, zero, deviation from
the official government line about the Day of Infamy, which was a prelude to media portrayal
on 911.
Fundamentally, the bottom line is whenever interests between national governments diverge
from those of their public, governments will lie every time--those two sets of policy HRC
admitted she had for public versus private consumption. Although it's too soon to be certain,
it appears that the leadership of Russia and China have learned the difficult lesson that the
best policy is for the national government to be in sync with the interests of its citizenry,
thus the philosophical adoption of Win/Win versus the Outlaw US Empire's Zero Sum game, which
forms the basis for our ongoing Hybrid Third World War.
Pe entities at work that are not under the control of the Russian secret services. Here is a
link to an article on RT.de about US
Special Forces at the Russian Border
All we can do is assume.
@karlof1 #37
My favorite pet peeve is Bernays. Even those who are aware of his deplorable actions,
seldom grasp just how devastating his selling out of the human psyche to corporations and the
NSA/CIA really turned out to be. The man hated the masses and short of calling them 'useless
eaters', he saw them solely as means to corporate profits.
His legacy is a citizen without any other rights than that to "go shopping".
Go
Ask Alice tells us the latest story about how much the surveillance has advanced. The
article is about some content provider with unknown identity. The core message though is
about the NSA/FBI/CIA going after anybody that comments on the internet, provided certain
keywords are triggered. While that has been known since Snowden, the masses suffer from short
term memory loss. Any dissent to the establishment is noted. This proves that there is no
more rule of common law and nothing resembling a democracy by a far shot. A Plutocratic
dictatorship determined to destroy anybody that poses a threat to its existence.
@66
"What would be the most sinister scenario in regards to Snowden and the NSA leak?"
That General Hayden gets his wish and kills Snowden. That's the most sinister.
If you meant, intrigue, double agent or useful idiot sort of thing, well, Snowden had no
intention of running to China and definitely not to Russia.
The Intel Agencies would have loved if he ran straight to Moscow. But it didn't happen. So,we
sort of know he wasn't "used". He was "allowed" because they had it covered when he handed
off the purloined data.
What sort of encrypted communication did he use on that trip to Hong Kong? They knew what
he was doing.
They tried for it to be an out-and-out treason case. Remember that they insisted the Chinese
in Beijing had it all?
They they tried to generate the same with Russia and Putin when he landed in Moscow.
I find him to be a useful tool for everyone who wants something out of his adventure.
People who think he's a hero have their hero. People who want him dead probably have some
contract out on him. And others want him to be returned and prosecuted like Timothy McVeigh
and executed.
Grieved indicated above @57, Snowden was in our culture now. He's an asterisk. Compare him
to Daniel Ellsberg. You cannot. Ellsberg forced the country against the war machine, forced
the NYTimes to grow a set of balls and publish the Papers, and he won against the Deep State
who tried to destroy him. All the while he stood like a man of courage and didn't scurry
around and lateral the papers off. They got published. He faced down the system and won a
huge First Amendment battle.
I chalk up the differences as Snowden is a kid with a keyboard. Assange and Ellsberg are
men. The latter really matter. Snowden is a very light symbol, at best. He embarrassed NSA
and only exists today because of Putin and Russian values.
I guess Vietnam was the great Evil, and surveillance just doesn't match up against what
that charnel house of napalm, carpet bombing, white phosphorus, Agent Orange and Agent Blue,
Phoenix Program assassinations became.
Ellsberg was a true hero. I named my first son after him.
The original 3 TV Networks were started by Intelligence figures. When the Church Committee
documented that all 3 were controlled by the Rockefellers, Senator Nelson Rockefeller was
able to limit the GPO printing of the report to less than 100 copies.
Time Warner was govt & military intelligence controlled since its founding in 1923 by
Henry Luce, a Yale Skull & Bones guy from an intelligence family. His father was a spy in
China pretending to be a missionary.
The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte wrote a book, Bought Journalists, in which he reported
that every significant European journalist functions as a CIA asset.
It became even worse during the Clinton regime when six mega-media companies were
permitted to acquire 90% of the US print, TV, radio, and entertainment media, a concentration
that destroyed diversity and independence. Today the media throughout the Western world
serves as a Propaganda Ministry for Washington. The Western media is Washington's Ministry of
Truth.
At the top it isn't the case that the CIA controls the media; rather that the board of
directors is named by the banksters and mega-rich. Like all the mega-corps, they are
thoroughly controlled by the Usurpers. The CIA has always been their private police force for
intell & enforcement at home and abroad.
To rule a world requires control of military force, of money, information, energy, and the
elimination of private property. Everything else is distraction. Probably the end of net
neutrality is important. The coming global digital money is catastrophic. Agenda 21 is the
global dictatorship, and is already decreasing private property-- among other things.
https://geopolitics.co/2015/04/09/the-true-purpose-of-agenda-21/
I recommend the video within it.
@73 Mark - I cannot understand why Snowden doesn't have another copy to give to
Wikileaks.
This is a crucial point. Edward Snowden chose not to possess the files after he had handed
them off to the journalists. He wiped out his copy when they started to publish them. This
was a deliberate choice, and part of an entire ethical view that Snowden held of the
situation he was in, and the situation he had created.
If you can't understand why he held this view, then you have to ask him, or study his
words. But rest assured that he didn't simply "fail" to have a backup copy in case his
journalists chickened out or sold out their commitment. He was a geek. He wasn't a
journalist. He wanted sensible journalists to handle the lifetime scoop that he was holding.
In my view, he made an incredibly good choice.
Put yourself in his shoes. The path he had already walked just to get those files to those
real-world journalists in Hong Kong was already a thousand times longer than anything that
could possibly lie in front of him. All this talk about assets - like you can keep this kind
of thing going: the man lived a lifetime in a few short years and did the best thing he could
ever have conceived of.
He earned the space to delete the files and sit back for a while and watch things happen.
He said he wanted the public to know, and the public to discuss - if he was wrong, so be it,
but it was for the public to discuss, he always said.
Everything I've written here may not be true. But if it is true, then on the basis of this
narrative of events, no one has any right to ask anything more of Snowden. He was the
messenger who put his body in the circuit to complete the signal. We all gained. He gained
nothing, except satisfaction of mission accomplished.
For me that's where his story ends. Greenwald, Intercept, oligarchs, slavery - these are
all another story, and one that I'm focused on. But I choose to honor Snowden for the bravery
of what he seems to have done, and if true that achievement scored so high that no amount of
falling short can diminish it.
Snowden confirmed the NSA files held by shadow brokers as genuine. How many years after
destroying his copies? Snowden worked in US intelligence, perhaps just as a geek, but I don't
see him destroying the only weapon he has against them.
I haven't read here any discussion of the movie, SNOWDEN, produced by Oliver Stone. I saw
it when it first came out. Is it on Netflix or other outlets yet? As movies go it fell short
of a documentary. That said, it provides yet another potential thin-edge-of-a-wedge thought
for the zombies that live among us.
The neurofeedback treatment that I am up to 132 session of has healed many people like
Edward Snowden (with his reported epilepsy) and I hope he gets such soon in his life; us old
folks are harder to heal. One of neurofeedback earliest successes was a woman with epilepsy
who after being healed went out and got a drivers license.....can't find the source but this
was 30-40 years ago
I consider Snowden to be a true American patriot. The American values that I was taught
are in stark contrast to those exhibited by the God of Mammon cabal in control today. I don't
believe that we are a bad species but sorely misdirected by something that can be "easily"
changed. Look at the progress we have made as a species. Why do we let ourselves be limited
in our development by centuries old conventions about who controls the tools of finance? How
many wars would there be if money was a public utility?
What more revelations of Snowden's archive could possibly make any difference? It is already
basically understood that the NSA, its contractors, and 5 eyes agencies "collect it all"
illegally, with no meaningful oversight, to the degree that social media became their
accomplice and extension, that they abuse this power and the constitution proudly and with
impunity for any purposes and justifications they see fit, and so on, and the vast majority
of citizens cower, or delude themselves with some comforting trust that it won't be used
against them.
It has only proven that nothing will snap the majority ignorance from its coma.
No one with any voice - even those involved seem able to comprehend how vastly and deeply
this will effect the free will of people, culture, and society - for that matter how it
already has progressed to do so.
In the wake of the retroactive telcom immunity (which by definition is an admission of
blatant criminality and conspiracy by and between both government and telcom corporations)
The Snowden revalations couldn't have been more explicit, signifiacnt, or urgent. The people
did nothing. Those minor percentage of us who bother to read and understand what is happening
can chatter and pontificate all we want, because the ignorant majority hasn't the interest or
energy to question the status quo. (they absoloutely have not the attention span to read a
single Greenwald article) So really I can understand why there is no point releaseing the
rest.
Snowden was the one upholding his oath to the constitution, against whose who
systematically violated it, and he is called a traitor.
As far as RussiaGate being some sort of distraction from this - no more than a distraction
from any other meaningful information that SHOULD be on people's minds.
Regrettably, Moon of Alabama has not spotted what all major government intelligence agencies
have known for a couple of years now ... European intel agency report - 'Edward Snowden &
Glenn Greenwald are CIA frauds'
...
[copy of a Veterans Today nonsense piece deleted - b.]
Snowden didn't "destroy" anything. He gave it all to Greenwald in Hong Kong.
That way, nobody could coerce or otherwise intimidate him; as there were no files in his
possesion.
Snowden himself clearly stated this fact.
That he landed in Russia is entirely the fault of the U.S. government (such as it is) by
cancelling Snowden's passport enroute; this becomes ancient history in today's world...
Oh mercy; this is getting just too weird and woo, woo, for this one; later will
be greater...
Posted by: V. Arnold , Dec 27, 2017 4:16:44 AM |
85
Oh mercy; this is getting just too weird and woo, woo, for this one; later will be greater...
Posted by: V. Arnold | Dec 27, 2017 4:16:44 AM |
85 /div
the Snowden('snowed in') saga is yet to be written, or perhaps, like much verity, will NEVER
be written. eluding the intelligence hounds for a couple of weeks while shooting a nice HD
video with a couple of prominent journalists never passed my smell test...
,,,
...and what might seem a minor quibble with Grieved's:
Manning with the video of the mercs shooting the civilians was the last time this
happened, I think
I agree that the Snowden info was the paradym changer that showed to me in unmistakable
imagery,
that my country was an outlaw nation hellbent on economic empire and had shifted from liberty
to total
Control mechanisms.
The Snowden info together with the missing 28 pages from the 911 committee findings sent
me on a
truth mission; reading everything from "CIA Rouges Killed JFK, Russ Baker's book on the
Bush
family, to Fahrenheit 911.
This former Neocon keeps trying to wash himself in the pure waters of the truth but cannot
wash clean his guilt
for once voting for and defending such trash.
So I continue reading sites like MOA and others seeking the truth and speaking out to
those in my life.
I agree that the Snowden info was the paradym changer that showed to me in unmistakable
imagery,
that my country was an outlaw nation hellbent on economic empire and had shifted from liberty
to total
Control mechanisms
Brabantian @ 83, Yes, the huge amount of publicity given Snowden was an obvious tip-off that
he is a hoax. All other whistleblowers get no publicity at all. Plus, everything that Snowden
"disclosed" was already known. Perhaps he's out there to give credibility to lies as yet
untold. Already his "asylum" promotes the fiction of East vs West opposition. It is a play
and we are the audience, stuck in Plato's cave.
'Snowden says he took no secret files to russia', NYSlimes 10/13
He argued that he had helped American national security by prompting a badly needed public
debate about the scope of the intelligence effort. "The secret continuance of these programs
represents a far greater danger than their disclosure," he said. He added that he had been
more concerned that Americans had not been told about the N.S.A.'s reach than he was about
any specific surveillance operation.
" So long as there's broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there's a level
of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and
willing decision," he said . "However, programs that are implemented in secret, out of
public oversight, lack that legitimacy, and that's a problem. It also represents a dangerous
normalization of 'governing in the dark,' where decisions with enormous public impact occur
without any public input."
Pffffft.
Zo, will congress renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 when they're
back in town?
There's a lot going on in this post and comment thread. I have no strong opinion about the
disputed status/role of either Snowden or Greenwald that are being discussed above, but I do
think it very likely that the Intercept was originally started as what is often referred to
(I believe following the Nixon tapes) as a "limited hangout" operation.
It was intended to "expose" certain truths the CIA/NSA knew were already implied by
earlier revealed and published documents and by this means was to distract the public (as if)
and journalists (all three of them) from probing more deeply into the history, scope, and
current operations of these and related programs. I would not be surprised if it turned out
somehow that the real objective of this was to block the inquiry into or exposure of special
access Intel operations during or prior to 9/11 which would blow up entirely the official
narrative of that epochal event.
But I would like to bring up one fact that bears on the ongoing discussion of Snowden and
Greenwald but has not been mentioned yet (I believe) in this thread. That is the NSA's
reported identification of (I believe) at least two other possible leakers or whistleblowers
simultaneous with or just after Snowden. I recall there being several reports about the
arrest or possible detainment of one possible leaker in particular whose identity has never
(to my knowledge) come to light. Does anybody remember better than I do this intriguing but
often forgot facet of the NSA / Snowden affair?
The existence, identity, and (unknown?) fate of this possible NSA leaker bears on the
questions being asked above about Snowden and Greenwald in obvious ways. If there really was
such a leaker or potential leaker who had at the time not yet been apprehended by the NSA,
then it is at least certainly possible that Snowden's own leaks were co-opted (willingly or
not) by the CIA/NSA to render the revelations of the other not-yet-identified leaker
anticlimactic and redundant. In this way, it is possible that Snowden's leaks, as filtered
through Greenwald, the Guardian, and the Post, were themselves a kind of limited hangout
operation.
Note what they produced: Obama admitted a discussion was needed, Clapper was dutifully
brought before Congress, lied to them, and was not punished at all for it, and some
peripheral laws were tweaked (and then untweaked) to give the impression that something had
been discovered, discussed, and addressed, with the hope that now everybody would stop
thinking too much about the NSA etc. This is exactly what happened, and it's exactly what
limited hangouts are designed to do.
I would be interested in hearing more information from others here about those one or two
other unidentified NSA leakers. What ever happened with that story? Was the identity of both
leakers ever revealed?
As many other here stated, what WAS revealed, to was already known to a large degree. What
WAS revealed, did not stir up the public sentiment beyond a ripple. It is the absence of any
whatsoever consequence to his revelations that does not make sense. For the first part, of
his living here in Hawai'i and subcontractor work for the NSA via Booz Allen Hamilton, reads
like a cheap version of a spy b-picture. Compared to the surrounding circumstances of Daniel
Ellsberg, Snowden's story appeared to be staged - if only to me. The more became known, the
less did people pay attention to Libya and Syria. The distractive value of the unfolding
Snowden whistle blowing was enormous.
I have always been flabbergasted about the naivety of the general public in regards to the
abilities, capabilities and determination of the so called 'establishment' - aka Plutocracy,
when it comes to the choice of means to achieve their psychopathic goals. What is out of
reach, or undoable to those that willingly accept the death of millions of innocent people in
the ME and the world over?
The utter destruction of sovereign Nations that don't fall in line? Organizing coup
d'etats like local fundraisers for soup kitchens? Looking at the track record of the American
establishment, nothing, absolutely nothing is ever off the table.
A staged NSA leak story that turns out to become more inconceivable and more suspicious by
the day. And it matters not. Not more than Assange spending his days in an Ecuadorian exile
until the plot line demands to change.
Therefore, the most sinister scenario includes a wholly staged Snowden storyline, with the
participation of Russia. This is not to say that this is the way it is, but not discounting
the possibility that it could be. On more than one occasion, Russian behavior, be it either
reactionary, or proactive has been inconclusive. A fool who would think that it is all just
theater on the expense of millions of innocent people and humanity as a whole.
No one has ever been able to predict the future in detail. Mankind is left to make sense
of the present and with constant misinformation and distraction, that appears to be
impossible.
Thanks to You and the other knowledgeable commenters.
There is a good case that both Snowjob and Assange are Limited Hangouts. Each has exposed
little beyond that which was already known. Neither offers any criticism of Israel's
occupation of Palestine and the Yinon Plan.
What they have done is to get the worlds' citizenry to understand that domestic
surveillance is a normal condition which should be expected and accepted.
@126 What they have done is to get the worlds' citizenry to understand that domestic
surveillance is a normal condition which should be expected and accepted.
This could also be stated as, "What they have done is to get the worlds' citizenry to
understand that domestic surveillance is a normal condition which should be expected and
guarded against ."
I think the world has changed since Snowden. Within the IT community, the sense of
security and its requirements has been changed. What's missing so far is a discernible
response. Wait a few more short years, until Chinese computing oustrips western encryption by
an order of magnitude, and sooner than that when Russian hardware and software made for the
consumer market is invulnerable to NSA technology. There's no sense trying to protect oneself
from NSA at present because it will only draw attention. But when the Russian kit is on the
market, let's just see who in the west buys it. I predict large sales.
I'm always wary of talk about limited hangouts. A case can usually be made that such talk is
itself intended for the same purpose - to lull the recipient into despair and passivity.
When we say that we've all been gamed by theater, it's another way of saying not to fight
back. But the Devil doesn't get it all his way all the time. And the rulers of the Earth
always have to work through agents, and they are so frigging human that plans often go
slightly, or greatly, awry.
We see more botched conspiracy action than seems credible. So a case can be made that the
carelessness itself is part of the subliminal message that resistance is futile. But is it
really intentional, or is it simply making the best of a bad job? Was Kennedy really gunned
down in daylight as a message to all of us that we'd better not resist, because the power was
total? Or was it just the way the state criminals think, that the way to kill a president is
the same playbook that always worked before, and still they botched the hit with all kinds of
missed shots and clumsy actions? Their secret weapon was media complicity - this allowed a
multitude of sins, and without it we'd have known 50 years ago who killed Kennedy.
And it WAS a secret weapon. It took a long time for this to become obvious. We see the
media all along has been completely mediocre, but since it has long given wall-to-wall
coverage, it never had to get very good in order to send the daily propaganda message. Come
the Internet, everyone sees how sloppy the media's work is. But does this raise the quality
of the media lies? It seems not - the opposite in fact, the readers get far smarter than the
writers.
The greatest trick the Devil pulled was not convincing the world he didn't exist, it was
convincing the world that evil was clever, when in fact it's very mediocre. Evil performs
badly. It will continue to perform badly. It can be resisted and overcome. This takes
time.
I always enjoy the words of fictional Lazarus Long: "Of course the game is rigged. But
don't let that stop you playing. If you don't play, you can't win."
Here is my little experience with the surveillance state: I am a user of the Mathematica
computer program developed and sold by Wolfram Research Inc. They have a web site for users
to exchange information called Wolfram Community. It is mostly about asking and answering
questions about the use of Mathematica or sharing Mathematica tricks. About a year ago a
series of about half a dozen ads for programmers appeared which were clearly link to
expanding the surveillance state. Here is one of them:
I replied by quoting the U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment and saying "Yes it was relevant
to the advertisement."
Within 10 minutes my reply was deleted. I received an email from Wolfram Research saying:
"We work very hard to foster positive environment on Wolfram Community and cannot allow any
discussions outside the Wolfram Community guidelines. This means discussions that stray way
beyond Wolfram Technologies topics."
So what is positive about advertisements on a community forum for the surveillance state
and what is negative about the 4th Amendment? And the advertisements had little direct
relevance to Mathematica. But I suppose they had their reasons.
"... It should be Clinton-Gate not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq. ..."
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance to avoid going after Clinton, which
shows a corrupted intelligence service working for political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The
evidence against Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence.
If you need more on Clinton
beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention
entirely corrupted over to her and then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated?
It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government
falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and
discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were
during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming
"Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of
Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.
Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER
the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.
Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan
newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.
Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting
Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves
illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece"
of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.
There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to
get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.
As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are
doing so.
There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation
itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he
has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are
going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.
What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC
advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's
business.
Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated
out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to
deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:
Russia hacked Hillary's server.
Putin poisoned the dissident.
Putin shot the reporter.
Kremlin killed Nemstov on the bridge,
Assad used chemical weapons,
Russia invaded Crimea,
It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what
he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump
as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies
lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In
fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff
lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.
I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close.
But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only
hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.
My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided
with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a
site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is
pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every
page.
It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the
privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a
"Kremlin agent."
There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus
needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it
well in advance.)
Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those
that own "our" government will change.
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on
against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the
Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out
loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11
happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He
belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a
criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI
agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US
political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical
behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is
nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the
"investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and
I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?
"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you
been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What
preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!
Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be
able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.
Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out
by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would
take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be
"Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of
the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling
the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments
would be forthcoming.
This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.
Rather obvious Steele made it all up.
That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can
honestly say I got it from you."
He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.
He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling.
100% swamp creature.
Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in
charge.
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and
mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will
continue to be a drain on the economy
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance
to avoid going after Clinton, which shows a corrupted intelligence service working for
political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The evidence against
Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence. If you
need more on Clinton beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much
pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention entirely corrupted over to her and
then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated? It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been
hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of
Iraq.
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In
fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff
lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.
I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close.
But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only
hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.
My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided
with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a
site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is
pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every
page.
It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the
privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a
"Kremlin agent."
There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus
needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it
well in advance.)
Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those
that own "our" government will change.
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on
against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the
Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out
loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11
happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He
belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a
criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI
agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US
political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical
behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is
nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the
"investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and
I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?
"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you
been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What
preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!
Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be
able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.
Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out
by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would
take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be
"Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of
the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling
the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments
would be forthcoming.
This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.
Rather obvious Steele made it all up.
That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can
honestly say I got it from you."
He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.
He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling.
100% swamp creature.
Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in
charge.
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and
mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will
continue to be a drain on the economy
Essentially FBI has pushed Sunders under the bus and as such rigged the elections. In no way
Hillary can become candidate if she woouls have benn charged with "gross negligence". In this
sense they are criminals.
Notable quotes:
"... And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment. ..."
"... Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe. ..."
"... Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House. ..."
"... JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement agency ..."
"... If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all. ..."
"... What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended. Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal vendetta. ..."
"... This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. ..."
"... The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming. ..."
The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple
one: Did he do it?
Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack the
emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect
Donald Trump?
A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no "collusion" has been found. Yet the
investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation
for what is going down here:
That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop
Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump's presidency,
overturn his mandate and bring him down.
Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting
national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18
months ago.
On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the
evidence gathered by the FBI, "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Clinton. Therefore, that
was the course he, Comey, was recommending. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her
infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton -- to discuss golf and grandkids --
seconded Comey's decision.
And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a
decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption
of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that
Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was
declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify
indictment.
Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a
munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter
Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation
of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance
policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI
had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers
present.
One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired
from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would
blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to
tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton
campaign.
For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was distributed
to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions
through law firm Perkins Coie.
Let's review the bidding.
The "dirty dossier," a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to
destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy's collusion with
Kremlin agents.
In Dec. 26′s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this
Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision "to open a
counterintelligence investigation (of Trump)." And press reports "cite the document's
disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps."
If this is true, a critical questions arises:
Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin
fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American
people?
Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud.
Mueller's top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller
is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they
loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his "Get Hoffa Squad" to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy
Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King. Is history repeating
itself -- with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United
States?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI
into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have
for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement
agency who often collaborate with mortal enemies of America like the ADL and other "watchdog"
groups in addition to assuming the biases of said organizations against certain groups of
Americans.
They behave like a bunch of cowboys and police state thugs and their treatment of and
unnecessary raid on Paul Manafort's home was just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI is becoming
a clear and present danger to civil liberties.
Trump was a bit of a wild card to the establishment elites. He lived in the public spotlight
for most of his adult life, so his foibles were well known, and he had too much money to be
bought off. Mueller was given his job to make sure Trump doesn't stray too far from the
elitists program. He appears to have been cowed and is walking the straight left of center
republican line, now.
"For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was
distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump."
No worries -- as long as somebody can still accuse "Kremlin agents" of something, the
Establishment will be just fine.
Time for Mr. Napolitano to take his turn at the spinning wheel?
Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless"
with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross
negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she
would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have
been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all.
What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been
able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the
investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to
that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate
Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended.
Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal
vendetta.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by
what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump.
The only thing I would take
exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin"
based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin
government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton
researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be
forthcoming.
So now we know who requested the raw intelligence on Team Trump with the names of American
Citizens 'unmasked'. It was then National Security Advisor Susan Rice:
White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan
Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of
occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S.
officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the
government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not
targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally.
Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in
reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
Maybe she will claim a video caused her to commit a felony?
As I noted
a while back , while Obama and Loretta Lynch authorized the expansion of who could request
the unmasking of Americans caught up in surveillance, the process still required a paper trail
of who the request was from and for what purpose. From the law itself:
For every entity in the US Intelligence Community involved with the intercepts of Team
Trump, the head of that entity should have filled out this request, including:
(U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT,
to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence missions or functions that are the basis for its request .
Skipping down, we get to another key item: who reviewed and approved these requests:
C. (U) Evaluation of requests. A high-level NSA official designated by the DIRNSA will
review requests for raw SIGINT covered by these Procedures. NSA will document its
approval decisions in writing and include a statement explaining how the request fully
complies with paragraph A.
OK, a key person who should have participated in the legal distribution of intercepts
involving members of Team Trump would be the Director of NSA and whomever they designated
to review the requests.
Note that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) is accepting the requests made
by the National Security Advisor (a different NSA). Today that would be one Michael Rogers, who
had to review and concur on Rice's request.
Interesting enough, one would have thought the FBI would be the organization with due cause
to unmask Americans for investigation. Why would the head of NSA be investigating Americans and
violating their 4th Amendment rights?
Well, that seems pretty obvious given that all this ill-gotten information landed in the
hands of the left wing news media, to fuel diversionary stories about some elusive
Trump-Russian connection. The fact this information takes a left turn through the office of NSA
on its way to the news media is telling in itself.
Clearly what caught Susan Rice was the paper trail of her requests, as is confirmed in the
article:
In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in
intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the
attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests
and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The strange thing is, if not for all the leaks to the newspapers, I doubt this review of the
logs would have happened! She and Team Obama triggered their own demise.
Of course, all this was leaked to a Dem-Friendly news outlet, which tried to spin this as a
nothing-burger and claim this is not the smoking gun.
But of course it's the smoking gun!
Let's pick up where the left wing news media tried to stop us from proceeding. Who tipped
off Rice on which raw data to unmask? And who was unmasked? The answers will inform us on her
intentions.
For example, if Rice's request was broad and yielded a range of Americans unmasked that
would be a general request without a target.
But if her request was against specific events with specific foreign players, which only
yielded results that led to only Team Trump, then that is a different matter. That
would be political targeting and a felony.
Finally, Susan Rice would never, ever do this on her own initiative. She would
never risk "The Obama Legacy" over this. A legacy, I must say, that is now in tatters based on
this news. It is just a question of whether the destruction of his legacy was due to ineptitude
or criminal intent.
There is much more to learn here. Everyone who did this knew they were crossing some serious
lines. They knew this because they had to put in place the processes to allow it. And since
these unmasking processes were laid out in January of this year, everyone knew they were up to,
if not over, those Constitutional lines.
Rice should be pulled in front of Congress and asked point blank under what authority was
she, the National Security Advisor, requesting names of US Citizens and their communication
contenrs? Recall, some of these requests are not related to Russia at all!
Color revolutions are false flag operations of regime change based on deception, fueling the resentment and delegitimization+ of
the elected government and fake promises to population.
Notable quotes:
"... color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception. ..."
"... It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership. ..."
"... Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks. ..."
"... History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. ..."
"... to help deconstruct the deception ..."
"... A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ ..."
Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the casual reader
immediately wonder what a "color revolution" is, keep reading, our view here is unique, but we most certainly have some answers.
Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:
"Color revolution(s)is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed
in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events
a revolutionary wave .
"Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used
nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance . Such methods as demonstrations,
strikes and interventions havebeen [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate
democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their
symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly
student activists in organizing creative non-violent
resistance.
"These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the
Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia's
Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine's
Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon's
Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the
previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005),
in Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq's Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution (1989), but
failed in Iran's Green Revolution
(2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation
or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be
authoritarian ."
What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions
are psychosocial operations of deception.
It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend
millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.
Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations:
destabilization without the tanks.
The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows
that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other,
sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive,
so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often -- or in what context
-- they have fallen prey.
Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last
ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.
But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear
alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by
that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public
relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each
of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes
and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences' intellect,
the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
(Legs for educational purposes only)
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular
one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers
in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents,
local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental
organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets
with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with
the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to
veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading
interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.
And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception .
But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe.
A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages
gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ . It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive)
is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.
Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions
of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate
upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.
As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more
attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.
It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer
this site.
"Never utter these words: 'I do not know this, therefore it is false.' One must study to know; know to understand; understand
to judge." --Apothegm of Narada
This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his
election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and
neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president
of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump
are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal
Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not
want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially
oppose the entire political system.
... ... ...
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of
the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian
masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for
English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or
"rabble").
It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are
now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.
And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people –
so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation
their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to
Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again
in 2017.
Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I
do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far.
Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to
deal with relation.
Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his
wife.
My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a
champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as
Crosstalk recently characterized him?)
So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each
and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we
have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.
He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he
is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.
We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.
we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally
out side of east Asia.
I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled
support.
Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of
neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really
is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot
of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be
readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely
the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us
with their own words.
Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as
outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people,"
whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for
their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent
from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how
radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to
make it happen.
The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal
narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in
power.
Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion.
Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do
not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause
some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.
Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that
I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class."
Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."
I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class
like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with
homogeneous interests.
A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social
elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed
the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as
a guest.
He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.
"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively
make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "
I think you are wrong here.
Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most
neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised
(immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)
Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly
for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and
lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.
All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between
Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would
be greater ?
In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:
The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread
and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind
of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic
form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the
policies.
Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including
neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties
no longer represent the will of the people.
Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose
to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves,
their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the
$400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM,
neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military
brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.
8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national
interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure,
in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of
$40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably
double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or
with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
The interests and sympathies of British government are clear form this peace:they are definitely afraid about reopening Clinton
investigation. If British government was behind Steele dossier that was a very dirty job.
Notable quotes:
"... All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe. ..."
In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine
the Trump presidency.
There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team
to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary
of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it
may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to
do that.
Tell-tale texts?
Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel
team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.
A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages
between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was
having an extramarital affair.
Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms
Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three
months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".
In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned
there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.
"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
40."
Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have
suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election
seemed unlikely.
Media caption President Trump renews attack on 'disgraceful' FBI
"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've
done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what
had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".
Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging
comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder,
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.
"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.
Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties
between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence
the investigation to the president's disadvantage.
Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance.
The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line
is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned
to a human resources job.
The Clinton case
Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and
reportedly was involved
in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description
of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".
During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton
and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.
"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and
clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during
a House Judicial Committee hearing.
There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation
that have yet to come to light.
"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.
Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these
"untraceable" phones.
Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias
within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate
findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.
Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016
campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted
by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary
of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.
Marital woes
When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that
have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat
for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race,
Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe,
a close political ally of the Clinton family.
Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet
another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.
"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential
election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against
Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.
Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was
recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed
allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself
has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with
the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.
Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the
actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic
activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to
inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.
Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded
and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information
is valid or merits further investigation.
Follow the money
The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping
the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.
Many conservatives beg to differ.
In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew
Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.
"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich tweeted . "Look who he is hiring."
Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the
Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.
Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and
said he
told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative
press.
"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming
a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham
said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office,
the more obvious it all becomes."
Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative
team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings
damaging to Mr Trump.
Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence,
personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will
rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.
Mr Mueller's waiver
Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested
- and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.
The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was
that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort
- who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver,
some are
speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director
of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances
are being called into question.
Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his
independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details
indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.
"... The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election. ..."
More than 40 bipartisan former government officials and attorneys [Deep State globalists] are telling President Trump and Congress
to leave Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller alone so he can do his 'job.'
In two letters, the former U.S. attorneys and Republican and conservative officials pushed back against efforts to discredit the
special counsel investigating [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents,
assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text
messages during the campaign and election.
"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively
make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "
I think you are wrong here.
Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most
neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised
(immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)
Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly
for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and
lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.
All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between
Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would
be greater ?
In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:
The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread
and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind
of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic
form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the
policies.
Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including
neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties
no longer represent the will of the people.
Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose
to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves,
their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the
$400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM,
neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military
brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.
8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national
interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure,
in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of
$40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably
double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or
with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).
Former FBI Director James Comey is in meltdown mode after his good buddy, the Deputy
Director of the FBI Andy McCabe, just "spilled the beans" to the House Intelligence Committee.
It was a "closed door" hearing, but we now have evidence that you need to know. McCabe
incriminated his pals, and that's really bad news for Comey. Immediately, Comey sent out a
cryptic message to President Donald Trump as he sees his life crumbling before him.
Source:
Comey Panics & Sends Message To Trump After His FBI Buddy Andy McCabe 'Spills The Beans'
https://goo.gl/2oK75n
What do you think of this video? Let us know in the comments below, and in addition, share
this on social media.
Don't let them get you down: "We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell
us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all
before us, and with just as much apparent reason." Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1830)
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
(VIDEO) There is a provable corruption at high level of FBI and group of high level official which
engaged in constant and deliberate undermining the rule of law and enforce their opinion on
American people.
Newt Gingrich says they're all going to jail. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with Fox
News' Sean Hannity called the spying on President Trump and the cover-up of Hillary Clinton's
wrongdoing one of the worst breaches of our justice system ever
"... "I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future. ..."
"... The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller. ..."
"... A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election. ..."
Last year, the marionettes rebelled. Naturally, the Great Puppeteer Counter-revolt of
2017 followed.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that
out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special
counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That
Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and
something needs to be done for the good of the future. "
Leaving aside the imprudence of the president firing the man investigating his campaign's
alleged ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump certainly possesses the right
to dismiss Mueller. Unelected people who work for the man elected president do not possess the
right to thwart the legal directives of their boss.
The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller.
A fine line exists between anonymous, unelected, unaccountable government officials
undermining the president's legal directives and such people working to overturn the results of
last year's election. One might argue the two as one in the same differing only in degree.
Did the Russians meddle in our electoral process in 2016 or do entrenched bureaucrats do so
on a constant basis? How one answers that question dictates one's response to this current
controversy.
November's results, one might think, would have sparked epiphanies. Americans voted for a
populist outsider to, in his words, "drain the swamp." Brennan's words indicate that the swamp
thrives six months after inauguration. The election neither hastened the drain nor chastened
the creatures from the swamp. As the late, great Stan Evans oft reflected, people go to
Washington imagining it a swamp only to soon regard it as a hot tub. Who wants to vacate a hot
tub?
A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns
resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of
this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted
by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes
off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that
directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is
an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election.
Consider any massive change in America over the last half century or so. The demographic sea
change in the United States occurred in large part in spite, not because, of U.S. immigration
laws. Courts, not the people, determined the legal status of abortion, gay marriage, school
prayer, and much else. On important questions regarding the environment, the internet, and
health care unelected bureaucrats make the rules under which we live. Such policy
change exposes the metachange of process change that allows unelected people to
impose their will on massive numbers of people. Tolerating the hijacking of policy soon leads
to empowered hijackers thinking they can hijack the presidency.
The Constitution decrees, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government." Do the deep-state puppeteers imagine that this principle does
not apply to Washington?
Donald Trump attempts to bring down the curtain on the long-running Puppet Show on the
Potomac. Naturally, Charlie McCarthy finds this more liberating than Edgar Bergen
Green Party presidential Candidate Jill Stein is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence
(sic) Committee for "Russian connections."
What has brought Russiagate to Jill Stein? The answer is that she attended the 10th
Anniversary RT dinner in Moscow as did the notorious "Russian collaborator" US General Michael
Flynn. RT is a news organization, a far better one than exists in the West, but if you were one
of the many accomplished people who attended the anniversary dinner, you are
regarded by Republican Senator Richard Burr from North Carolina as a possible Kremlin
agent.
What is going on here? Stein sums it up: "we must guard against the potential for these
investigations to be used to intimidate and silence principled opposition to the political
establishment."
Here I sit considering two interesting invitations. One is to speak at the main Plenary
Session of the Moscow Economic Forum in April. The other is to speak at the Summit for Global
Challenges in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan in May. The very minute I accept, the
NSA will notify its mouthpieces, the New York Times, PropOrNot's promoter the Washington Post,
Senator Burr, and Special Russiagate Prosecutor Robert Mueller. Would I be renditioned to
Israel or Eqypt or Saudi Arabia and tortured until I confessed that I was a member of the
Trump-Flynn-Jill Stein Kremlin spy network?
As the United States is no longer a free country governed by a Constitution that protects
civil liberty, that possibility cannot be discounted. What is for sure is that if I accept
these invitations, the US Establishment will discredit my voice when I write about US/Russia
relations. Indeed, that was the intention of the PropOrNot Washington Post story that attacked
200 truth-tellers as "Russian agents/dupes." Many of those so attacked have experienced slower
growth in their readership. After all, Americans and Europeans are insouciant. They are
actually sufficiently stupid to believe what governments and print and TV media tell them.
I, too, was invited to RT's 10th Anniversary celebration in Moscow. Imagining the
celebration would be grand balls in palaces and myself, decked out in white tie with my French
Legion of Honor dancing with those beautiful RT women, I almost accepted. But I learned in time
that the event was conferences and speeches and decided to forego a Moscow winter.
Otherwise I would be in the dock with Trump, Flynn, and Jill Stein and whomever the
Washington Gestapo settles on next.
Russiagate is an orchestrated hoax. That has now become so apparent that even insouciant
Americans are catching on, even those low IQ ones who sit in front of TV news. I often
disparage Congress, but here is a member who is admirable, Republican Representative Jim Jordan
from Ohio.
Watch the
short video and delight in the power and force with which Rep. Jordan goes after the piece
of crap US deputy attorney general the Twitter President has in office. When the President of
the United States has to rely on a congressman to call out the Justice Department and the FBI
for its criminal actions and for its treason to overthrow both democracy and the elected
government of the United States, you know we have elected a president who is too scared to
defend himself. Roger Stone is correct, if Trump were a real man, Mueller, Comey, Hillary,
Obama, and the rest of the criminal scum would be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for their
vast crimes, crimes that exceed those of anyone in prison today.
But Trump is nothing but talk. No action.
How much longer can I give interviews to Russian and Iranian media before the Washington
Gestapo gives me a midnight knock on my door.
Whatever America is, it is not a free country.
If Trump wants to make America great again, he must shatter the CIA, FBI, NSA, and media
into a thousand pieces. The concentrated power that President Eisenhower warned Americans about
in 1961 is far too great for liberty to survive.
Instead, the weakest president in American history actually read the speech handed to him by
the ruling neocon military/security complex and declared Russia and China inimical to
Washington's interests.
Americans are too insouciant to understand it, but this was a declaration of war against two
countries, which when combined are more than a match for Washington.
Neither Russia nor China, much less an alliance between them, will accept Washington's
hegemony.
If the hubris-crazed fools in Washington persist, we are all going to die.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years,
we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with
a stronger, more realistic outlook.
Nope.
In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics
(if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives
are former followers of Trotsky
communism -- not very conservative, huh?)
For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a
leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people
understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.
As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi
writes :
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public,
weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently
said :
Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to
tame them and make them safe for liberalism."
So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar
to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons
than to real liberals.
Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations
richer and expand the American empire.
There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the
Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more
nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military
conquest and empire.
If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention
of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.
But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.
Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards
war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.
Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very
old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it
or not, it is still an iron fist.
A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.
This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics,
Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the
left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who
are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics
to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability,
indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance,
we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.
Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution
or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.
Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of
the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture
though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.
Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write!
I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short
for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate
bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying
the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.
The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since
2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political
ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.
Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political
ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population
wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate
conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons
and NeoCons.
When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue
to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue
making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans
like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors
and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.
Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting
the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need
more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors,
political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about
political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on
speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate
conservative.
There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and
Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the
wider political landscape of Europe.
Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of
a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream
conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate
also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc
in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President
Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine
if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political
compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of
political ideologies.
Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your
own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning
more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type
of leadership, and government they actually want....
Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What
do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government
you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.
This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches
of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might
add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the
record.
You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago
School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization"
of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally
unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They
are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.
The second point we want to make, relates to Mueller himself who–far from being a "stand-up fellow" with a spotless record, and
an unshakable commitment to principle–is not the exemplar people seem to think he is. In fact, his personal integrity and credibility
are greatly in doubt. Here's a little background on Mueller from former-FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley who was named Time's Person
of the Year in 2002:
"Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law
improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos
mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and
requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were
simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers
who revealed these illegalities
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11." ("Comey and Mueller: Russia-gate's Mythical
Heroes", Colleen Rowley, Counterpunch)
Illegal spying on American citizens? Infiltration of nonviolent anti-war groups? Martial law? Torture??
This is NOT how Mueller is portrayed in the media, is it?
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has
been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.
Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and
all its racy tales.
" there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to
believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that
should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments.
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."
-- Anti-Consttutonal activity by Rod Rosenstein = Treason.
You mean, we should have better read the New Times and WaPo instead, in order to get the "gigantic scope of the investigation?"
-- Thank you very much. But these ziocons' nests have not provided any hard facts related to the main goal of this particular
investigation. However, a true and immense value of the investigation is the exposure of the incompetence of and political manipulations
by the FBI deciders -- as well as the sausage making under Clinton leadership in the DNC kitchen.
"It should have never been started. Trump and his administration screwed themselves."
– Disagree.
The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the
FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence),
and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of
the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the
watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder.
For those familiar with Mueller, the blunt-force approach taken toward the GSA is something of a signature of Mueller and
his heavy-handed associates like Andrew Weissmann. As I have previously written, Mueller has a controversial record in attacking
attorney-client privilege as well as harsh tactics against targets. As a U.S. attorney, he was accused of bugging an attorney-client
conversation, and as special counsel he forced (with the approval of a federal judge) the attorney of Paul Manafort to become
a witness against her own client. Weissmann's record is even more controversial, including major reversals in past prosecutions
for exceeding the scope of the criminal code or questionable ethical conduct.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively, decide to pack it in and go back to
running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And
they want Trump OUT -- no matter what the cost.
This is American Maydan -- a plot to depose legitimate (albeit widely hated) government. History repeats. And Mueller is a part
of the game to depose Trump for sure. As he is is supported by by powerful anti-Trump forces Trump can't simply fire him without risk
of provoking political crisis. He is in Yanukovich position now and need to negotiate from the position of weakness, not strength.
Now it looks more and more plausible that Steele dossier was a joint operation of CIA and MI6 to discredit Trump: an insurance as
Peter Strzok told his paramour.
The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump's campaign staff colluded with Russian state
actors is approaching infinity.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but confirms that the only 'proof' the FBI
and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is the discredited "Trump Dossier."
This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as opposition research by Fusion GPS. McCabe
stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn't point to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known
knowledge of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.
And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.
Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let's not bring facts in to dash the hope of the terminally insane.
McCabe has to stonewall on this issue
otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent.
Because that's where all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look at what we actually
know as opposed to what we 'just know to be true.'
Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.
Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting down the Mueller investigation to
'protect the sanctity of our elections' are a bunch of simpering morons.
And I'm sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in this country.
For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.
This is the session that happened just before appointment of the Special prosecutor. So it was a interesting moment which relael
the growd work for the appointment of the Special prosecutor and the extent US Congress was involved in this activity. So a part
of Congress was also active in the plot to depose Trump.
It is also interesting due to the fact that McCabe, the person at the center of Steele dossier controversy at FBI
was present. As you can see everybody try to hype Russian threat for their own political gain. And McCabe clearly played into
inflaming this paranoia further with his answers.
Also interesting is that while answering "yes" about Russian interference in election was the most safe answer to give, but the
real question is not about Russian interference per se, but whether the level of Russian interference exceeded in scope British interference
(criminal story with Stele dossier and wiretapping of Trump tower), Israel (via Israel lobbyists, NGOs, Kushner and Trump donors)
and Saudi interference (donations to Clinton campaign) to name a few. If the answer is "no", then this is clearly a witch hunt.
Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalism unclear. It does resist enlargement of
the US neoliberal empire as it has its own geopolitical interests in former USSR space. How would the US react if Russia helped
to depose legitimate government in Mexico and started to supply arms in order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government
would consider were occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal is not illegal. And
there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
Notable quotes:
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016
election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask this question is consequently that committee
assess -- or that community assessment was unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr. McCabe for as long as you are Acting
FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links
between Russia and the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48 hours it's critically important that we
have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee
supports them, supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu all over again in terms of the release
of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the
type of tactics that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved
in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform
-- platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there some general sense -- Director Coats
I know you've only been in the job for a short period of time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it
was Russia in 2016 other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of collection and analysis relative to what
the influence has been and potentially could be in future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met
with the Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe and other places. It's clear though,
the Russians have upped their game using social media and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So
it's a great threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence we can to the policy makers
to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern but since this doesn't fall neatly into
any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's -- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the
Google, Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of state boards of election? How
are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for
Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but there's contribution from agencies across
the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us --
each of the agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT, whether it's NSA through human
or other sources will provide information to us that we want to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still assessing the impact. We have not put a grand
strategy together, which would not be our purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to be sitting here kind of looking back
at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind
the intervention in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed against the Russian -- excuse me, directed
against the French election process. As I previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm -- I'm not really in a position to make
a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think
the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted
any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any
decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women
of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and people know this, Kaspersky Lab software
is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable
with the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly, this is consistent with what -- right,
this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their
deepest tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the past is that the opinion of all of you
-- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election,
efforts to influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing that the Russians continue
to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and the decisions made in American politics;
particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not
simply something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this has been going on for a long time. There's
-- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly increased the impact and the capabilities
that -- obviously this has been done for years and years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness
and -- and all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their game to the point where
it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access information in massive quantities that weren't
quite obtainable to the same level previously and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as perhaps we should be but I certainly
think that, given China's aggressive approach relative to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits
a -- a review of CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to address the aggressive
-- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major investment bank -- you name a park of
the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also
adding military capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that -- that you wouldn't necessarily
expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest they have to the Indian Ocean in --
and a different way to address nations that they've had difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought
to take a look at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is
wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey should be here this morning testifying to the American people
about where the investigation he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates
I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk
in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians
to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to attack our democracy, he did; that
is an established fact. The only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate occasions the director informed him
that he was not under investigations. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes
or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? That's not about
conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment on whether or not the director and
the president of the United States had that conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone else in the White House on the status of
the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney
General Yates warned the White House that he could be blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting
attorney general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global threat. This is a global threat question,
this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military official, that has real ramifications for
the global threat. So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail
by the Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction, Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I -- I wasn't part of any of those conversations.
I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question, Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a Putin crony could end up owning a significant
percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that potentially, we could provide intelligence
on in terms of what this -- what situation might be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question in, there have been mountains of press
stories with allegations about financial connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant
to the FBI and my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to be laundered on its way
to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get
your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe, what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian
money and its potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about specific investigations and certainly
not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal the origin and the -- and the track and
the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more
obtuse, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed is to give the American people
some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an
observation and then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start with you Director Coats,
to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate and all through the last administration.
And I have been greatly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far
as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national media here is focused on domestic
issues which is of great interest to the American people be it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in my judgment, robust engagement with the
intelligence communities around the world and with other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And
I want -- I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real engagement in the last administration
and all the administrations are different. So Director Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come with an agenda in mind in terms of
what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and
a number of things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats that exist out there need
to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director Pompeo and I can certify the fact that
we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking
questions and asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the national security council, General
McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats,
how do we address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy makers in terms of how they put
a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes
exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors
to come and show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the information they provide how that
-- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind of sit in the same spot we all sit in
through the last several years and I kind of like your observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president everyday, briefing him with the most
urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as -- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're
doing our work in the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the battle space in places the administration
-- the previous administration was completely absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and they welcome American leadership. They're
not looking for American soldiers, they're not looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership
around the globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the first 100 days and -- and done it in
a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge
difference as far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement experience, is it -- is it your experience
that people who are innocent of wrong doing typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal letter from -- earlier this week from
the president where he writes, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But let me go to something a little more
direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but I really don't want to go into the details
of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director Comey had -- had lost the confidence of
rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21 years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported
Director Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the
moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running
the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable
abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell
you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about
many things, but I can confidently tell you that the majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection
to Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the
-- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and
I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence
threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to provide classified information to an individual
who has been compromised by a foreign government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was compromised what -- what sort of action would
you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report this ad how it's -- how it is processed.
I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our -- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector
general and others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election
last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people experiencing questions and are reacting to
the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday
indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into
Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I --
I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian
investigation is adequately resourced. COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying a individual that he is
a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not part of our normal case investigative
practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and is perhaps on the
verge of being indicted that the Justice Department sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the answer to this question but is it standard
practice for the FBI to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to have been a notification from the FBI
director to President Trump or anyone else involved in this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target,
is that correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to figure out what's standard practice and
what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint claim that APT28 is the group that was
behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly
tied APT28 to Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement in stealing data
that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior to the French election to be the result
of activities by this group, which is linked to Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity associated with France but as I have
said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in
the course -- particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French counterparts to inform them and make
sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances, we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of Representative, "I have been authorized by the
Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals
associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian
efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." Is
that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI, is that
an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and their involvement in this election. One
of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation
of Russian involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that? And is that
being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the presidential election, I'm talking about state
level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference
in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working
on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled,
I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to improve not only our coordination with
-- primarily through the Department of Homeland -- through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office. There was not any American press allowed,
was there any consultation with you with regard to that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications
in that incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were you consulted at all with regard to
the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need
for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his
release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious
way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you seem to be of great interest of being
here. And we're going to look forward to really from hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think
that we'll able to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency and the morale basically starting back
from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election
such as this and did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would develop. You know, as I said earlier
Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are
also a fiercely independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that basically Director Comey got involved
in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale? Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the
outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about
Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and
people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making sure that you have no interaction with
KL or any of the contractors you do business with? Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I would hope that -- I'll go down the line
but I hope that all of you -- we are very much concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph)
their involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky
software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder to define but at this point we see no
connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting (ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about Kaspersky and its position here. And that
continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've swept all of your contractors to make sure
they understand the certainty you have, concern that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're
not involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't talk about them much. And when you talk
about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is
-- what are we doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have with these gangs within
our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like -- much like the online pharmacy threat.
It continues to change and develop harried we think it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the
country, so we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the aggressiveness with which would Russia
uses active measures or covert influence operations, propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016
and in hacking into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French election last week -- that's
one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates,
in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted a massive covert action operation, aimed
at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January
18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified
version of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy
to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically, undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that
it be included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in
the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert
influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping
with these past practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures
to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One
would be re-starting that old (inaudible) Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials
who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United
States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials
asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential
election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I
don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate
of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the process of generating the insight violate
the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights, but to produce that
estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information,
or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy
rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel.
I assume you have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702
(inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly,
and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours, and I appreciate your candor with
this committee during the course of this open hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity,
including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to make sure they have the resources they
need and are getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation,
in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California.
So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been
fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information
or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources.
And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would
make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not talked with the White House about the Russia
investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will
not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's -- that's working on this issue. They are
-- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they
understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators, analysts and professionals
staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission.
But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will find a way to directly communicate with
those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI,
given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I
apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. We expect
that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting
whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what
they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period, where we have a number
of people who are in acting positions of authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stay focused on the threats;
stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me.
And of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by
the Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication -- second-hand, any sense at all that
the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You
have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're
a foreign intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge
of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American people. I mean I'm just finding it very
hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor. He was present for the daily brief on
many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall
every conversation with General Flynn during that time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical
question that I think is particularly troubling and that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department
of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report
confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated
with a signaling system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits,
resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions.
These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities
and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent
plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I
think the federal communications commission has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take
charge of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern the Department
of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government
to the private sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability,
the nature of the problem. Partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director,
glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how
many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in
itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have
security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading
peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have
a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would -- if confirmed
and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to
a specific number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I
learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the -- the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant
statements as to that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine
whether or not they breached privacy. So, it -- it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I believe in June -- as early as June to address
-- get into that issue and to address that, and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe --
we are committed -- we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I understand the complexity of it now and why
it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the
number. If they say it, and the government is not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security
and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.
If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years,
we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with
a stronger, more realistic outlook.
Nope.
In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics
(if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives
are former followers of Trotsky
communism -- not very conservative, huh?)
For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a
leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people
understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.
As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi
writes :
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public,
weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently
said :
Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to
tame them and make them safe for liberalism."
So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar
to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons
than to real liberals.
Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations
richer and expand the American empire.
There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the
Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more
nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military
conquest and empire.
If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention
of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.
But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.
Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards
war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.
Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very
old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it
or not, it is still an iron fist.
A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.
This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics,
Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the
left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who
are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics
to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability,
indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance,
we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.
Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution
or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.
Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of
the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture
though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.
Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write!
I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short
for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate
bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying
the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.
The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since
2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political
ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.
Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political
ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population
wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate
conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons
and NeoCons.
When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue
to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue
making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans
like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors
and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.
Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting
the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need
more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors,
political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about
political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on
speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate
conservative.
There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and
Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the
wider political landscape of Europe.
Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of
a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream
conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate
also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc
in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President
Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine
if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political
compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of
political ideologies.
Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your
own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning
more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type
of leadership, and government they actually want....
Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What
do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government
you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.
This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches
of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might
add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the
record.
You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago
School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization"
of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally
unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They
are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown
of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.
By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress,
income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the
Institute for New Economic Thinking website
Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that.
Introduction
Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest
rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted.
It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already
well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).
This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth
inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at
the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have
fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song
promising jobs and growth (
Ferguson and Page 2017 ).
What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?
If we go by four of the papers
commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline
conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused
by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu
& Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary
Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier
times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering
the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.
But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when
they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in
order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term
stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment"
as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the
interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers
are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.
This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.
To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal
policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest
of our economy.
The Market for Loanable Funds
In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new
(investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors"
(firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment
by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.
We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings
(or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases.
This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:
In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds,
and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit
their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the
public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment
and the supply of loans equals the demand.
But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved
by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure
1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as
the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital
(R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies
that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.
To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic
imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium
in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot
decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium
outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence
upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple
diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant
Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.
The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015;
Taylor 2016
). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create
new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because
the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect
of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price
(the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption
that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes
already pointed out).
Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation
I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope
that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important
that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to
be left mis-diagnosed.
First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions
Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings
and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the
ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at
the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the
average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand
go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines
(due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward
in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):
The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital
shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves
shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is
a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift
independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism
based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes
in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.
Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save.
In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well.
The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the
'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure
of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds
market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are
much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was
arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.
Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules
Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does
The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable
funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and
'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo
, i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process
by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early
on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter
(1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo
) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the
name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money
has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes
into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of
bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed
his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report
(1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach
is 98% fictional, as he writes:
Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe
banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital
between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional,
and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ]
The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money
takes this form .
We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have
'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.
It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans
they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement
from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists,
including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds
model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof
2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing
capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank
of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating
banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes;
and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:
" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore,
by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence,
not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic
roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."
Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw
a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no
'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting
the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):
"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit
expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin,
of increased saving."
This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis
in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from
investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.
Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price
In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality,
central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable
amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one
acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the
model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015)
argue:
modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that
rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending
and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's
leading central banks.
What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds
market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context
of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment
being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or
consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative
to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017)
as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the
secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.
Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets
What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality
and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial
(derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists
have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers
in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented
"liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The
liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate
swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets)
and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.
The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash --
thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively
safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that
highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick
2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein
2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are
now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin
to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation
have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class
which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians,
this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design
policies to reduce the excess liquidity).
Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows
"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows."
If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned
conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But
savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables.
Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling.
It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan
demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase
in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that
some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?
To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes
debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows
and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest
rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest
rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't
actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment,
but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly
minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that
case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio
of the savers.
Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing
If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger
than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting)
data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross
and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017)
did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means,
they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017;
Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household
has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure
3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against
the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be
seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest
rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the
deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle'
by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived
macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.
Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure
1(a).
To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function
of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds
to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing
wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result,
the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to
the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross
investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate
insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment
schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic
shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened
job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).
Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand
Conclusions
The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused
by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The
decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global
demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason
for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example
through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income
groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within
the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand
in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about
it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.
It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic
economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are
now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical
men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In
2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the
stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert
to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to
the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"
Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We
cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by
no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and
public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the
scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.
"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that."
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre
thinking?
The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of
aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.
In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.
Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through
taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.
Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do
whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.
Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.
There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors
can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"
I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but
not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no
use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation
you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut.
You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.
Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings
glut from a lack of demand.
You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the
savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to
buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the
widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable
form of wealth distribution.
One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not.
The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because
they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained
by their 'savings'.
"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even
when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow
more in order to invest."
That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds
yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).
For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range
from 1952-1980.
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending.
But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full
employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.
Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The
social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would
grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits
would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage
rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices,
and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more
appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.
In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would
have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.
Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.
This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might
see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating
us. That is what we are up against.
If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence
of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will
melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.
The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its
place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate
methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.
In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because
of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in
my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever
wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow
economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.
Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.
You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise
for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting
the war.
By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time,
and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every
terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people,
and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.
Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge
to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain
global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy
proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.
The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory
is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart
but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy
basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating
is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the
middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and
explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend
these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put
out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.
precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and
orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided
2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization,
that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.
calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes
I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they
are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish
another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate
modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.
Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan
(who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen
have had better instincts – not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the
battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve
everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored
problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard
to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that
these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above.
Storm's point – also made by both old hands and new MMT – that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack
resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources.
What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously
slack. That's the good news.
Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.
Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .
A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion
of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand
come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in
a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?
Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies
is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .
The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.
So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.
This:
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong
influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible
form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift'
and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path
to bliss.
Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.
The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS
application for a BS OS.
Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of
Weber just the other day.
By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult
beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the
population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.
To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy'
-- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of
new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."
Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?
Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may
have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular
assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the
two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were
little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and
they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]
According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population
so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population
in check.
The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of
the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.
Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:
The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteía from κρυπτός kruptós, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan
state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians,
but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling
classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Köchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be
a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.
So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.
For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and
all that goes a long way back, eh?
Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the
debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling
of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where
does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?
Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument
is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A
little help?)
Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce
a valid calendar
. The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper
place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.
Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong,
then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent
and Pentecost -- would also be in error.
As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent
imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with
each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of
its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox
had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.
The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants,
and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle
Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of
frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates
from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly,
confusion was the result.
The Church Saves Time
[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]
The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders
that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.
A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was,
putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were
increasingly at risk.
ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us
helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of
governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like
your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.
Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do
mean "one day."
Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."
In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that
encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply
the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.
That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further,
we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.
As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued
so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The
Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place."
Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.
The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock
full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more
thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.
When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars
of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although
they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests
of a failed church.
Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely)
neoliberalism is no way of being human.
Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign
in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy
will get me nowhere.
Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short
lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It
never ends!
I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way
of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?
(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply
curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)
* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat
that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze.
And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless.
That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing
stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold
coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social
well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.
Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic
Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).
The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot
pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't
even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan
against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact
that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain
is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."
Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant,
then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand,
it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption
will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the
full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability
and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.
We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in
relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise?
By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if
too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable
funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation
because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt
to create profitable opportunities when there are none.
Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions
of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.
I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital
accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having
the most impact.
I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things
being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or
even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says.
Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't
changing.
In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not
just non-linear algebraic equations.
Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"
Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending
occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else
would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?
This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens
and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.
Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail
when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?
IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running
smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks.
These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.
Now we can view Brennan testimony throw the prism of Steele dossier scandal and Strzok-gate
(with whom he who probably has direct contacts)
Please note that the interview was given directly after the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor Mueller and at this time many though that Trump was "fully cooked" and that neocon and
neoliberal swamp in Washington managed to consume him.
Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia
"brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off.
Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional
committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if
Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for
improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to
interfere.
In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in
August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016
election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in
the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."
Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."
Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the
cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between
the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.
While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump
campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was
any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts
occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan
said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence
services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a
treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he
said.
Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because
of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President
Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin
and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's
actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside
Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human
rights if elected president.
But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the
likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before
Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate
her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton
that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely
"husbanding it for another day."
On another question, Brennan criticized President Trump's reported sharing of classified
intelligence with Russia officials. Brennan said if reports were accurate, Trump violated
"protocols" by sharing the information with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the
U.S.
Brennan also said he was "very concerned" by the release of what he said appears to be
classified information from the Trump administration. He said there appear to be "very, very
damaging leaks, and I find them appalling and they need to be tracked down."
Reacting to Brennan's testimony, a White House spokesman said "This morning's hearings back
up what we've been saying all along: that despite a year of investigation, there is still no
evidence of any Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that the President never jeopardized
intelligence sources or sharing, and that even Obama's CIA Director believes the leaks of
classified information are 'appalling' and the culprits must be 'tracked down.'"
Under questioning from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Brennan said the Russians have been
trying to disrupt Western elections since the 1960s, and that they've quickly adapted to the
times. Brennan pointed to the ease with which Russia was able to hack Democratic operatives'
emails, which were then published on WikiLeaks.
"The cyber-environment now really provides so much more opportunity for troublemaking and
the Russians take advantage of it," he said. Brennan said the use of spear phishing, and
"whatever else so that they can then gain access to people's emails, computer systems
networks," is something that the Russians are adept at.
He said Russia used WikiLeaks as a "cut-out," or go-between, and that protests by WikiLeaks
that it is not working with Russia and Russia's claims it is not working with WikiLeaks are
"disingenuous."
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to
re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people
or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United
States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the
population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost
their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's
history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the
"clinically insane," political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in
the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates
and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the
majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the
"choice" -- overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional
representation scheme -- regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to
have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates,"
according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "that economic elites and
organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S.
government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no
independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite
Domination [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30
countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30
countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home
front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence
that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the
1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine
operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist
Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10
million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592
and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing." In the case of
the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM) -- which were both important
attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and
top-down class warfare -- the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and
destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members
of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or
on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the
movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white
supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.
Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs
within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid
spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously
scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only
allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also
provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought
to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these
nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in
indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization,
anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has
sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign
to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of "democracy" (which has sometimes required
integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class
in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and
perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so
indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its
halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to
the fact that it never was one. Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is
precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the
radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces -- not those that have been
deployed to destroy them -- should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the
people.
"Neither Robert Mueller's team nor the US Senate Intelligence Committee has bothered to
contact WikiLeaks or me, in any manner, ever." -- @Julian Assange, Twitter, September 20,
2017
This one tweet completely invalidates the notion that Robert Mueller has been conducting a
legitimate investigation into the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential
elections. Regardless of the degree of suspicion in which Assange is held, there is
absolutely no excuse for the people responsible for investigating Russia not to have had any
interaction of any kind whatsoever with one of the central characters in the official
narrative about what Russia is supposed to have done.
"Prosecutors have been avoiding Assange because he has said multiple times that the
Russian government is not the source of the DNC leaks."
If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken
with Assange personally, and he would have done so long ago. But finding out what happened
last year is not Mueller's job. Mueller's job is to enforce a pre-existing narrative. It is
painfully obvious at this point that the Senate Intelligence Committee and Mueller's team
have been avoiding Assange the way Hillary Clinton avoids personal responsibility because
Assange has said multiple times that the Russian government is not the source of the DNC
leaks or the Podesta emails released last year.
If this is an actual investigation into an actual alleged crime, then Assange is
necessarily either (A) a source of useful information, (B) a person of interest, or (C) a
suspect in the crime itself. None of those allows for any excuse for not speaking to him. If
it's either (A) or (B), he's a potential goldmine of information for their investigation to
make use of. If it's (C), they can grill him and try to get him to give something up. Even
someone caught on video committing a murder eventually gets interviewed by the law
enforcement officials responsible for investigating their case to establish the accused's
side of the story; if they didn't, they'd be committing malpractice. Since they did not seek
to question Assange early and extensively, this cannot possibly be an actual investigation
into an actual allegation.
"If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken
with Assange personally long ago."
The fact of the matter is that Russia has been America's Public Enemy Number One since the
end of World War Two, and for that reason there is a longstanding tradition in the United
States of tarring political enemies with baseless accusations of Kremlin ties. Establishment
loyalists have been accusing WikiLeaks of being in bed with Russia since long before any
election meddling accusations surfaced, despite the organization's long and continued record
of publishing critical documents related to the Russian Federation. They have been doing so
not because there is any basis for such accusations, but because WikiLeaks is their political
enemy. There is nothing more hostile to America's pernicious unelected power establishment
than unauthorized truth-telling, and WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in
unauthorized truth-telling. It is that simple.
Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth. Mueller's investigation is
actively avoiding all potential sources of truth. The US intelligence community to which
Mueller is loyal is the right arm of America's unelected power establishment, and due to
conflicting economic and geopolitical interests things have been coming to a head with Russia
for a long time. The neoconservative ideology which governs America's foreign policy is
geared first and foremost toward preventing the rise of another rival superpower, and the
former seat of the Soviet Union will always be first on the list of suspects.
"WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in unauthorized truth-telling. It is that
simple.
Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth."
Things are not going as planned for America's true rulers. Not in Syria, not in North
Korea, and certainly not in Russia.
***People's unprecedented ability to network and share information due to rising internet
literacy and access has caused a severe breakdown in the propaganda machine which holds their
entire prison together, and people are waking up to their manipulations***
.
(Hence the move to eliminate net neurtrality as I posted supra)
These creeps are on the back foot now. Keep fighting and wrest control of the world away
from the plutocratic sociopaths who are trying to deceive and enslave us"
"... The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them questions to which the FBI already had the answers. ..."
"... Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon. ..."
Within hours of his victory in last year's presidential election, Donald Trump dispatched
his lawyers to establish a nonprofit corporation to manage his transition from private life to
the presidency. This was done pursuant to a federal statute that provides for taxpayer-funded
assistance to the newly elected -- but not yet inaugurated -- president. The statutory term for
the corporation is the presidential transition team, or PTT.
In addition to paying the PTT's bills, the General Services Administration, which manages
all nonmilitary federal property, provided the PTT with government computers, software and a
computer service provider. During the course of the PTT's existence, the folks who worked for
it sent or received tens of thousands of emails. The PTT ceased to exist upon Trump's
inauguration, and a receiver was hired to wind it down.
Last weekend, a lawyer for the receiver revealed a letter he sent to Congress complaining
that special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any agreement
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by
Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election -- dispatched FBI
agents to the GSA looking for copies of all the PTT's emails and that the GSA surrendered
them.
How did this happen?
When the FBI is looking for documents or tangible things, it has several legal tools
available. They range in their disruptive nature from a simple request to a grand jury subpoena
to a judicially authorized search warrant.
The FBI request is the easiest for the government, and if FBI agents ask you for something and
you give it to them, you cannot later be heard to complain that your privacy rights regarding
the things you surrendered were violated. If they seize your documents pursuant to a subpoena
or a warrant, they normally get to use what they have seized.
The issue becomes more complex when the FBI comes calling for documents of yours that are
legally in the hands of a custodian -- such as your physician, lawyer, banker or accountant. In
the case of Trump's PTT and Mueller's wish for all PTT emails, the sought-after data -- the
electronic copies of all the PTT's emails -- were in custody of the GSA.
Anyone who has ever used a GSA computer is familiar with the warning that appears on the
screen at the time of each use. It says that there is no right to privacy in the communications
sent or received, as the electronic versions of those communications are the property of the
federal government. This, no doubt, is the reason Hillary Clinton infamously used her husband's
computer servers during her four years at the State Department rather than the
government's.
We do not know whether Mueller's FBI agents merely requested the electronic data from the GSA
or his prosecutors obtained a grand jury subpoena. If it was a simple FBI request and if the
GSA simply complied, that was a lawful acquisition by the FBI of the PTT emails, yet in that
case, the GSA violated its fiduciary duty to inform the PTT of the request before it complied
with it.
If the FBI came calling on the GSA with a grand jury subpoena, that means Mueller's team
must have presented evidence under oath to a grand jury and demonstrated that the sought-after
items would more likely than not be helpful to the investigation. When a grand jury issues a
subpoena to a custodian of records -- no matter who the custodian is -- it is the moral and
fiduciary duty of the custodian, not the government, to inform the owner of the subpoenaed
items that a subpoena has been received.
In some cases, it is also the legal duty of the custodian to inform the owner, but it
apparently was not in this case. As far as we can tell, there was no written agreement between
the GSA and the PTT requiring the GSA to inform the PTT of any document requests or subpoenas.
Had such a request been revealed, the lawyer for the receiver of the PTT would have had an
opportunity to challenge the government before a judge. Without that notice, there is no time
for the challenge.
Until 1986, it was the duty of the government when seeking documents or tangible things from
a custodian to inform the owner, as well as the custodian, of its intent. That fair procedure
gave the owner of the records time to challenge the government before a judge. But the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (which has nothing whatsoever to do with
protecting privacy), enacted at the dawn of the digital age, did away with that
requirement.
Now if the custodian remains silent in the face of an FBI request or a grand jury subpoena,
the owner of the documents loses his opportunity to keep them from the government. That is what
happened here.
But there is more.
The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be
devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been
interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their
emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members
into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them
questions to which the FBI already had the answers.
Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's
practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump
team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon.
Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Judge Waterboy is back again this week, serving the Establishment by propagandizing against
Russia while supposedly giving readers expert guidance on American governmental and legal
processes.
" .. special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any
agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known
efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election --
"
Where does one go to read any specification of and see any evidence for these
"now-well-known efforts"? Has anyone who still watches TV seen that question put to Mr.
Napolitano?
Notice, too, how the language has been massaged since Mr. Napolitano's column published
here on December 7:
" .. the no-nonsense special counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian
government in its now well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election ..
"
Rather than copy/cut/paste, the author has taken the time to alter his words:
any Americans >>> the Trump campaign
Russian government >>> Russian intelligence
interference >>> affect the outcome
Mr. Napolitano may be giving himself room to navigate the evolving scandals in Washington,
where we are invited to take sides in the intramural battle between Team Red and Team Blue
or, for the relatively sophisticated, President Trump and Deep State. But no matter how that
all turns out, the processes and this article about them serve to Otherize another people and
state from which our rulers can keep us safe and free.
"Can the FBI Get Away with Getting Trump Team Emails?"
They already have. We will hear more bluster from Representatives Gowdy and Jordan but as
always in the past nothing will happen. I have lost count, but these two have been
grandstanding for years on all manner of injustice .without one victory.
Again with "now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the
2016 presidential election"?
The meme is well known. But approximately half of us know it is a lie. Judge Swamp
Creature knows it's a lie but (repeatedly) repeats it anyway. What's in it for you Judge?
What is now well known is that Mueller is a political assassin, hired to lead a soft coup
against an elected president.
Why bother to ask these silly questions? FBI gets away with anything and everything it wants
to do. When a mob owns ALL the blackmail files, nobody can stop it. There is no such thing as
"law". There is only bullets, bombs and blackmail.
Mr. Napolitano is taking a radical position when he confidently claims that it is legal for
the FBI to secretly read transition emails without a warrant or subpoena, or, indeed, any
official authority whatsover. It seems the FBI simply asked GSA for the emails, rather than
getting a subpoena -- that's the big point here, since of course GSA has to hand them over if
there is a subpoena, but a court has to authorize it then. So here, the FBI had no more
authority than any other agency in the executive branch. Mr. Napolitano's position is that
that's fine. If so, it would equally have been okay for the GSA to give the Secretary of
Agriculture, the IRS Commissioner, or President Obama permission to secretly view the Trump
transition team's emails during the transition. Indeed, the FBI was not acting with any
authority in this case, just a request, so Napolitano's claim is that the GSA could have
given the emails to Nancy Pelosi if she'd asked. Is that really the position you want to
take? It's absurd. If that were the law, then no winning presidential candidate would ever
want to make use of transition facilities and computer systems, since it would be to allow
the opposition party open access to all of his plans.
who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the
outcome of the 2016 presidential election
For true? Great. Since they're so well-known, please describe them in detail.Oh, you mean
nobody's got any idea WTF those efforts were? Yeah, thought so.
Even assuming a GSA computer warns its user ( everytime?) that data stored on it is
government property how does that allow Mueller or anyone else to seize the emails of the
party not using a GSA computer? No warning was given to the party receiving an e-mail or
replying to an email sent from a government computer.
I recognize a wiretap records both ends of a telephone call or email but that requires a
judge to issue the warrant ( and we can hope the judge has more respect for the Constitution
than the creep writing this does).
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient ..."
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments ..."
"... the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct, or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently. ..."
"... Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids. ..."
"... The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid evidence of anything. ..."
"... Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents ..."
"... The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning to unravel ..."
"... The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general ..."
"... That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller. Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because he's so obviously a criminal himself ..."
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe
that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been
met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None. And that's been the main criticism of the investigation from
the get go. It's fine for the New York Times and the Washington Post to reiterate the same tedious, unsubstantiated claims over and
over again ad nauseam. Their right to fabricate news is guaranteed under the First Amendment and they take full advantage of that
privilege. But it's different for professional attorney operating at the highest level of the Justice Department to appoint a Special
Counsel to rummage through all manner of private or privileged documents, transcripts, tax returns, private conversations, intercepted
phone calls and emails -- of the democratically-elected president -- based on nothing more than the spurious and politically-motivated
allegations made in the nation's elite media or by flagrantly-partisan actors operating in the Intelligence Community or law enforcement.
Can you see the problem here? This is not just an attack on Trump (whose immigration, environmental, health care, tax and foreign
policies I personally despise.) It is an attempt to roll back the results of the election by bogging him down in legal proceedings
making it impossible for him to govern. These attacks are not just on Trump, they're on the legitimate authority of the people to
choose their own leaders in democratic elections. That's what's at stake. And that's why there must be a high threshold for launching
an investigation like this.
Consider this: On May 17, 2017, when Rosenstein announced his decision to appoint a Special Counsel he said the following:
"In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and
appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed
or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique
circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree
of independence from the normal chain of command." Rosenstein wrote that his responsibility is to ensure a "full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election." As special counsel, Mueller is charged with
investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President
Donald Trump."
That's not good enough. There's no evidence that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" were improper, unethical or illegal. Nor do any such presumed "links and/or
coordination" imply a crime was committed. Rather, the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open
ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands
of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct,
or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently.
Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been
caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation
of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated
to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids.
So, how does one establish whether there's a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed?
The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that
was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the
beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid
evidence of anything.
Here's the from the report:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
... ... ...
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
"The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general."
That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller.
Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because
he's so obviously a criminal himself.
That segment of the general public, as it were, have been opposed to the establishment of the investigation itself from the
first day it was proposed.
Just hours after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delivered private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, his boss,
FBI Director Christopher Wray, announced that the bureau's top lawyer would be leaving his post, an attempt to bring in "new blood"
to an agency whose reputation has been hopelessly compromised by revelations that agents' partisan bias may have influenced two high-profile
investigations involving President Donald Trump and his former campaign rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As the
Washington Post reported, the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, is being reassigned.
WaPo says Baker's removal is part of Wray's effort to assemble his own team of senior advisers while he tries to defuse allegations
of partisanship that have plagued the bureau in recent months.
James Baker
But reports published over the summer said Baker was "the top suspect" in an interagency leak investigation, as
we reported back in July
Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation,
but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.
A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau
is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within
its own national security apparatus.
The news of the staff shakeup comes as Trump and his political allies have promised to "rebuild" the FBI to make it "bigger and
better than ever" following its "disgraceful" conduct over the Trump probe . Baker played a key role in the agency's handling of
major cases and policy debates in recent years, including the FBI's unsuccessful battle with Apple over the growing use of encryption
in cellphones.
Just like Clapper admitting to perjuring himself before congress and he is brought on TV to comment as if he is a decent person
instead of being thrown in prison like anyone else would be.
According to Politico , a group of frustrated Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee led by Devin Nunes (R-CA) have been
gathering in secret for several weeks to build a case against senior leaders of the Justice Department and the FBI for what they
say is "improper" and perhaps criminal mishandling of the salacious and unproven 34-page Trump-Russia dossier, according to four
sources familiar with their plans.
Devin Nunes (R-CA)
A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been
quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. [ ]
The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy
in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement. The group hopes to release a report early next year detailing their concerns about
the DOJ and FBI, and they might seek congressional votes to declassify elements of their evidence. -
Politico
When pressed for details, Reps Mike Conway (R-TX) and Peter King (R-NY) were mum, with Conway telling POLITICO, "I don't want
talk about what we do behind closed doors."
Nunes' has gone on record several times to discuss his feelings over the government law enforcement, telling Fox News "I hate
to use the word corrupt, but they've become at least so dirty that who's watching the watchmen? Who's investigating these people?"
adding "There is no one."
House and Senate Republicans have joined countless voices, including President Trump's outside counsel,
Jay Sekulow
, to launch a second Special Counsel to investigate the FBI and Justice Department to find out what role the salacious dossier played
in the Trump-Russia investigation, as well as a trove of anti-Trump text messages sent between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok
to his FBI attorney mistress Lisa Page while the two of them were working together on both the Clinton email investigation and the
Trump-Russia investigation.
Republicans in the Nunes-led group suspect the FBI and DOJ have worked either to hurt Trump or aid his former campaign rival
Hillary Clinton, a sense that has pervaded parts of the president's inner circle. Trump has long called the investigations into
whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election a "witch hunt," and on Tuesday, his son Donald Trump Jr.
told a crowd in
Florida the probes were part of a "rigged system" by "people at the highest levels of government" who were working to hurt
the president.
House Intel Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH) told Fox News yesterday that they are now considering contempt of the FBI and DOJ
leadership and subpoenas over anti-Trump bias:
I think they were putting together a plan to stop Donald Trump from being the next president of the United States. I think
it's amazing in spite of the fact that the Democrats were against him, the Republican establishment was against him, the mainstream
press was against him. and now I believe the FBI and the Justice Department were against him , the American people still said
that's the guy we want to be the next president.
" I believe that fake dossier was used as the basis to get Warren to now what we learn about Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr and the
FBI and the Justice Department ," said Jordan, adding, " Everything points to the fact that there was an orchestrated plan to try
to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States ."
Meanwhile, Trey Gowdy - who notably chose not to call on key witness Peter Strzok or demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr for testimony
- is apparently not included in the group seeking to build a case. As POLITICO reports, "A congressional aide with knowledge of the
meetings said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was not among the participants. " While he does believe the FBI and DOJ have recently made
decisions worth looking into, he is and will always be a defender of the FBI, DOJ and the special counsel ," the aide said.
I think he's intimating that she would have been responded to with extreme violence from the 'deplorables'. Gotta admit: had
she gotten in, we may have already had a revolution. Instead, we get this slow death by a thousand cuts. I'm not sure what is
worse.
At this point I would not trust Mr Gowdy, in fact it's my hope his time with the state of SC ends soon. He's simply shown an
extreme level in lacking execution. After what happened this week with McCabe's closed door testimony, it's clear Gowdy isn't
on the side of the American people. It's called being able to close & he doesn't have it or is holding something back.
The corruption in the FBI is too broad and too deep. This organization is a nest of traitorous vipers who actively worked to
overthrow a constitutionally elected president.
The organisation must be gutted and it's mission absorbed by other agencies. The current FBI management should water the tree
of liberty.
@Art
Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,
and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in
Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an
American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your
countrymen didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq
The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely
when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace
of integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from
membership of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate
imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly
imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian"
justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass
destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war.
An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest
aggressor.
I'm sure you're proud.
and both places had it coming.
A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.
Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such
arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly
quiet about the past three decades of foreign policy.
@reiner
Tor The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show
that), and yet our re-unification has been a huge success! I honestly can't think of good
reason, why we can't go futher.
@Felix
Keverich"an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,
By various and sundry Sunni insurgents, who continue to distort and disfigure life in
the provinces where they have a critical mass of the population. The Kurdish and Shia
provinces are quiet.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media.
There seems no evident reason to look for another explanation for the drops in
pro-American sentiment. They seem eminently justified by the US's behaviour over the period
1990-date and perfectly unsurprising.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he
fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US
sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them. It
seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for
his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and
in 2004.
It's understandable that following a particular instance of particularly bad US
behaviour (such as Kosovo or Iraq) opinion of the US in US sphere states would dip
dramatically (as it did, mostly) and then recover slowly to roughly its long term mean,
because those crimes were not directed against the interests of US sphere states or elites.
But they very much were targeted at Russia or its interests and disadvantageous to Russia
and its global status. Russians had few excuses for failing to see that the US was an
implacable and dangerous enemy from at least Kosovo onward, and yet they repeatedly chose
to pretend to themselves that it wasn't.
This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin
loosens its tight grip of the media.
Why are you assuming that the pendulum would swing back?
The Kremlin is still playing nice with Western "partners".
The alternative does not have to be more pro-American.
@Art
Deco As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now
these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian
puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?
C'mon, Iraq invasion was a disaster for the US whichever way you look at it. That's what
happens when you start a war for the wrong reasons.
@reiner
Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they
don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy
worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for
some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine
and, to a much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between
themselves and Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the
culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will
tell.
Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.
@Art
Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 --
Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the
outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly
discernible at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or
even Islamist in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq
anymore the worst thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide
bombers (bad, but hardly an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to
deal with his regime in coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them
in place for the foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was
purely a war of choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region
according to its own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather
questionable, it's you who needs to get out more.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing
for Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.
It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama
merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway
in 2000 and in 2004.
Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous
conflicts.
@Art
Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the
Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of
Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every
night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).
I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the
supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually
taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed
that the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but
it never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians,
but that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that
there was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time
after the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are
totally unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.
Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies,
especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO,
especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists
among them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts
for their electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like
NATO wasn't really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors
(some of them). This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.
@reiner
Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"
Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't
understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the
Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued
vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still
believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American
fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it
was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the
American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it
was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not
regard Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" -- foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
The last two sentences contradict the first.
Russians tend to be rather ignorant of Ukrainians, and you are no different.
Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified
Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though.
They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each
other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
This is for them to decide, not for you.
It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the
world.
Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture.
In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian
culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians,
55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede
from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but
with expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May
2013 found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar
autonomy within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea
should be separated and given to Russia".
The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine
had an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013
poll), but preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by
Ukrainians (2008 poll, post-Maidan).
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You
managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.
@DFH
Oh, Western Europe does not mind Slav/Muslim immigrants.
In fact, they love them.
They would not have agreed for other reasons without admitting them in public.
As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together,
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military
interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran
and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US
military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:
That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world
affairs.
which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.
In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama
took office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US
forces in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto
present on the sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have
an Iraqi collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran,
but the long Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought
hard, but were mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US
occupiers, as indeed had much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both
cases.
Military occupations are morally complicated like that.
@AP I
was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among
Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
@Felix
KeverichAs I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now
these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian
puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?
Your memory is bad. The three Kurdish provinces never suffered much. Political violence
in the Shia provinces was finally suppressed over a series of months in late 2007 and early
2008. It was also contained to a degree in the six provinces with Sunnis. And that is how
matters remained for six years. ISIS was active in those provinces which have had public
order problems consistently since 2003.
Iran has influence in Iraq. It is an 'Iranian' puppet only when unzdwellers require
rhetorical flourishes.
@Mitleser
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that
Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case
can be made both ways.
reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all
proudly call 'home' -- an actual Russian nation-state.
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a
militarized occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud
home.
Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land
that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.
Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time
as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great
Russian speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?
No, it's just an argument you're not used to having to answer.
The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime
hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world --
were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the
time.
It was nothing of the kind. That was on the list of concerns Bush had. Bush's trilemmas
don't go away just because Eurotrash strike poses and have impoverished imaginations.
@AP
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never
thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a
meaningless answer.
I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some
leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will
just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.
The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us
to modify our approach.
@German_readerUS started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own
preferences.
It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd
been a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome
casus belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was
no better alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.
@inertialYes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.
They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor.
It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from
now.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls
public opinion.
They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part,
corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense
pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make
foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive
coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that
Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you
about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni
tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.
Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of
victory and defeat on your part.
The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete
military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi
military and the occupation of the country.
However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to
impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of
US power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of
the war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of
American national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US
regime policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant,
and the overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with
vigorous sunni jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US
as most ME states are.
So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial
military victory.
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military
interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran
and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior
US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis
I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that
hating Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an
accident that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's
favourite.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect,
that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the
media.
Definitely no
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians
that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.
@Art
Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting
US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very
unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when
pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too
alienate the majority permanently.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the
US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach
after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that
cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension
of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
@Art
Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely
one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was
merely a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the
region according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war
increased Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the
responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor
appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a
thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though.
They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat
each other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.
In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter
was by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand
bin Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no
clue what he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush
declined that offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some
foreign ass in order to appease American shame.
The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's
clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for
the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to
make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law
and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.
But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national
interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the
astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly
informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a
thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have
had the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of
unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world,
pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.
The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It
chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking
to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US
attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic
jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed
in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US
would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.
Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure --
carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and
more positive views of the West.
There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to
deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to
retain control.
What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
-- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A
typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated
white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" -- these are
not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like
they already fled from Donbass).
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because
he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the
US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left
them.
I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts.
My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views,
and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.
An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends
over the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still
less about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace
it was for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully
the making of Swedish media. The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the
Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the
crisis in the Donbass.
@Swedish
Familyruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you
about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will
prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of
agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate
triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.
@inertial
Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in
"between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet
propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets
ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as
an enemy.
Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though
this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden
connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR.
There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.
@German_readerOfficial justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction
No, that's what you noticed in an amongst everything else being discussed by officials
and in the papers at the time.
which didn't exist in 2003.
It's a reasonable inference the stockpiles were largely destroyed. To what extent they
were able to ship stockpiles to co-operating third parties is not altogether certain. You
know the stockpiles were largely destroyed because . we were occupying the country
.
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends
until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became
too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is
another Dunkirk with the UK realising it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).
Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the
way France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are
relegated to Germany's sidekick.
China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the
US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When
it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down
China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.
It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of
the charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should
have resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did
not want to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a
democracy in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the
political bill for that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay
paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the
Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost
nothing.
Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the
obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian
public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:
oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults
dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are
free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times
before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is
some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena
are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching
Europeans might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can
improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and
kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle
Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than
projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).
Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because
we had troops in Iraq?
Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear
allegiance directly to Khamenei.
Is that "victory" for you?
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them
to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something
they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
Is that "victory" for you?
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing
again.
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never
thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a
meaningless answer.
So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are
not prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their
preference?
So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans
preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied
within Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being
part of Russia?
Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict
your idealistic views?
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around
70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend
itself?
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the
word I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military
service if they study at university or have good jobs.)
@RandalWell, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear
allegiance directly to Khamenei.
You can get away with more by using the prefix 'there has even been speculation'/
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for
them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's
something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US
backing again.
Their western neighbor never invaded them 'with U.S. backing'. During the latter half of
the Iraq war, Iraq restored diplomatic relations with the United States and received some
agricultural credits and other odds and ends.
Iran will be under threat from their western neighbor should they have something that
neighbor wishes to forcibly seize.
Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished
business.
No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do
so, and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still
largely applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).
The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.
This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to
invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you
there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The
sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you
preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime
Minister at the time, instead.
More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible
advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice,
and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign
policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught
as such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up
trying to rationalise it) for generations to come.
@SeanReceived wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it
isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America
will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the
Russian public and for what purpose?
It is known -- the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and
European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in
Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .
For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab
Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify,
track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes
land in Syrian airports every day.
However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new
ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis
in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge
advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.
@Art
Deco US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire"
supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast since you seem to put
great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you? Personally I think those
fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's influence has increased a lot
in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime facilitated that development?
Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi
government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the
Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice
that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by
extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
Well you have to wonder if he was just trolling the Americans, or if he was really
naïve enough to expect a serious response.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around
70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend
itself?
It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.
Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend
itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in
Donbass
Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in
2010 got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange"
candidate. In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist
candidates, vs. about 10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth
attitudes, was split 50/50 between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20
anti-Maidan winning in Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?
A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university
educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"
Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and
Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is how Azov started:
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at
least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014,
during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in
Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in
Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect
82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim
Troyan:
Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.
these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,
On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they
know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk),
forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while
fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are
nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but
passive support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city
full of a resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if
it gets Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home
base of Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv.
And Kiev is a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million
(officially, most likely about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and
maintenance of a repression regime while under international sanctions.
Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is
actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and
Donbas.
Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact
that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the
invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers
after their cakewalk.
@Sean
The share of value-added in industry as a share of global product has been declining for
over 50 years. In the EU, industry accounts for 24.5% of value added. In Britain, the
figure is 20.2%. Not seeing why that animates you.
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of
fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.
Correct. The thinking often was -- "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us
killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our
city I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding
the draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in
the East has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas
-- ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels
contained there, they'd have to fight at home.
US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly
being created and threatening US allies in the mideast
No, they aren't. The political class has been anxious about Iran because it's sinking a
lot of resources into building weapons of mass destruction, because key actors therein
adhere to apocalyptic conceptions, and because it's a weirdly (and gratuitously) hostile
country.
since you seem to put great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you?
Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's
influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime
facilitated that development? Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias
operate in Iraq, the Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an
active participant in the Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this
before 2003?
You keep alluding to things that cannot be quantified or even readily verified. Iran's
taken advantage of disordered situations in the past (in Lebanon), so it's not surprising
they do so in Syria. The disordered situation there is a function of the breakdown of
government in Syria, not of the Iraq war. Whether any influence Iran has in Iraq turns out
to be abiding remains to be seen. The anxiety about Iraq has concerned it's inclination to
subvert friendly governments and drop atomic weaponry on Israel. Not sure how their subrosa
dealings with the Iraqi government further the latter (or even the former).
@AP
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in
Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security
services know all of them by name.
To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their
HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis
would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight
an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived
insurgency.
The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media
and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced
this:
Obviously I don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, though imo US policy in this
regard has been rather counter-productive recently.
Regarding the Iraq war, it's probably pointless to continue the discussion, if you want to
continue regarding it as a great idea, I won't argue with you.
I remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of
America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.
And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are
not modern western Euros.
And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country
Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions
(including Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.
OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who
would be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov.
Plus a military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and
probably redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out
block by block.
trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them
In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30%
voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split
although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the
Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews,
classmates etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city.
Such idealism and optimism in Russia!
@German_readerThe supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US
media
"Imperial" or "Imperialist" is a term of art among IR specialists referring to active
revisionist powers in a given state system.
The people you are linking to are a mixed bunch. One's a lapsed reporter. Two are
opinion journalists with background (one in the military and one in the intelligence
services, or so he says), one has been out of office for 40 years (and, IMO, is engaging in
the academic's exercise of attention-seeking through counter-factual utterance; there's
little downside to that), and one actually is someone who has been a policy-maker in the
last generation (and he's offering a critique of the Iran deal, which was not a Bush
administration initiative).
This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to
invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you
there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq.
The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you
preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime
Minister at the time, instead.
Who gives a damn what they think? These are the same countries that plunged the world
into two World Wars that killed 100m people between them. Their blinkered and self-serving
stupidity is a model for what not to do.
@TalhaI remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of
America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.
I remember Gen. Zia on the front page of The New York Times ridiculing Mr. Carter
in plain terms (the $400 million aid offer was 'peanuts').
@RandalThe Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was
no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks
told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need
to invade Iraq,
The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq. As for the rest, they
all have their shticks and interests (and no, I don't stipulate that you've characterized
their opinion correctly either).
And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie
teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified,
so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much,
too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there
was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible
enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the
evolution of my political views.
The common factor amongst you, reiner and myself here is that none of us come from a
dogmatically anti-American background or personal world-view, nor from a dogmatically
pacifist one.
As I've probably noted here previously, I grew up very pro-American and very pro-NATO in
the late Cold War, and as a strong supporter of Thatcher and Reagan. I saw the fall of the
Soviet Union as a glorious triumph and a vindication of all the endless arguments against
anti-American lefties and CND numpties. I also strongly supported the Falklands War (the
last genuinely justified and intelligent war fought by my country, imo) and also the war
against Iraq in 1990/1, though I'm a little less certain on that one nowadays. I'm
significantly older than you both, it seems, however, and it was watching US foreign policy
in the 1990s, culminating in the Kosovo war, that convinced me that the US is now the
problem and not the solution.
When the facts changed, I changed my opinion.
So I was a war or two ahead of you, chronologically, because I'm older, but we've
travelled pretty much the same road. Our views on America have been created by US foreign
policy choices.
@AP
Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight.
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't
look like they have a lot of fight in them:
They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a
tantrum, but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.
@Felix
Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its
control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so
that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo
chamber.
US foreign policy is pretty much a byword for incompetence even amongst its own allies,
at least when they are talking off the record.
@Art
Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they
speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the
Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak &
correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for
non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.
Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia
run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of)
the EU.
The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.
That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.
The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is
a great idea.
As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests
Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world
whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it
displays in all the wars it has ever fought.
You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.
Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so
that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo
chamber.
"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's
underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for
which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the
Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both
communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of
pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing
Tikritis or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's
rule. The big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced
both Shiites and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of
Uncle Sam. They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of
ISIS) at bay without American assistance.
* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam
Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the
gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable
one, given Iraq's strategic location.
@Art
Deco Sure, but the ordinary folks liked him -- he seemed like a humble man with faith
from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate to someone like that.
I was just a wee lad at the time, so I'm only conveying what my dad told me.
@Art
Deco Well, there is some reason to think that membership in the EU will become a
steadily less attractive prospect.
The substantial demographic changes sweeping northern and western Europe now will become
far larger as (1) new "migration" occurs from Africa and the Middle East and Pakistan into
Europe; (2) "family reunification" chain migration goes on endlessly from the same places
into Europe; and (3) Muslims continue to dramatically outbreed non-Muslims in Europe.
(Even if Muslims in Europe drop their total fertility rate to replacement, around 2.1 I
think, the non-Muslim Europeans have TFRs like 1.4 and 1.5 and 1.6, the very definition of
dying peoples.)
And that doesn't even account for the flight of non-Muslims out of Europe as it becomes
ever more violent, frightening, chaotic, and impoverished. That flight could become a
massive phenomenon. (We have acquaintances in Germany and Austria already mulling over the
idea, with great sadness and anger in their hearts.)
On current trends, what reason is there to think that "Germany" and "France" and
"England" and "Sweden" won't in fact be heavily Islamic / African (and in the case of
Germany, Turkish) hellholes in the lifetime of many of us here?
Granted, Russia has too many Muslims itself, and I don't know enough to predict whether
they will be willing and able to remove the excessive number of Central Asian Muslims
(guestworkers or otherwise) from their territory. But Russia is not giving itself away to
Muslims at a breakneck pace like the terminally naïve Germans, French, English, and
Swedes are doing with their own countries.
The point is, Belarus and Ukraine won't be faced with a choice between Russia and the
"Europe" that we still envision from the recent past.
Belarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they
lack the force to maintain, union or close formal affiliation with Russia, or a "Europe"
where white Europeans are outnumbered, terrified, massively taxed to pay for their younger
and more confident Islamic / African overlords, and ultimately subjugated and killed /
inter-bred into nonexistence.
The Europe that you are positing as an alternative to Russia, already doesn't quite
exist anymore. Soon it won't exist at all in any recognizable or desirable form. Russia
merely needs to be a better alternative than THAT.
@RadicalCenter
Fine. The EU is poorly constructed and a threat to self-government.
Mr. Felix fancies White Russia is Russia's property. There's a constituency in White
Russia for re-incorporation into Russia, but it amounts to about 1/4 of the population and
is half the proportion it was 20 years ago. Kinda think it really shouldn't be Mr. Felix's
call, but he doesn't see it that way.
@German_reader
Agree with much of what you say. With a big exception": most Europeans ARE pussies who try
to appease the Islamic and African aggressors and freeloaders they are importing into their
lands at a furious pace. Besonders die Deutschen.
At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third
World takeover of our country. Albeit probably without success.
Summary: we're probably screwed, you're almost certainly screwed worse and faster.
Keep patting yourself on the back. But grow that beard now and bend over -- and beat the
rush.
@RadicalCenterBelarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they
lack the force to maintain,
Just to point out that occasions where a state has had its sovereignty extinguished
since 1945 are as follows: East Germany (1990, voluntary), South Yemen (1990, voluntary,
but triggering an insurrection), Kuwait (1990, temporary), South VietNam (1975/76,
conquered). Not real common. N.B. the Axis rampage in Europe and Asia during the War: the
only thing that stuck was Soviet Russia's seizure of the Baltic states.
At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third
World takeover of our country.
30 years too late, though I'll readily admit that I was somewhat impressed how normal US
citizens managed to kill off amnesty proposals during Bush's 2nd administration by lobbying
their congressmen etc. Quite the contrast with what's going on in my own country where
people just meekly submit to everything.
And I've never denied that many Europeans are quite decadent they should certainly spend
more for their own defense, maybe even bring back conscription.
What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American
casualties and the cost to the US treasury
No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American
national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have
seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were
hugely counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and
broken former enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined
with a strong ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.
Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the
point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those
Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers.
If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a
defeat.
But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the
Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would
have been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama
was over Syria.
However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets
that Saddam is gone
Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel
matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game
of alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war)
and regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying
something Americans don't like to hear).
They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at
bay without American assistance.
Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab
proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in
due course with Iranian backing.
In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the
south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in
Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in
desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon
beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than
pretending to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of
overthrowing the Syria government, American-style.
@German_reader
I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close
to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type,
and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's
certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments
being level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of
other topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility
for the periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.
To which I added:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming
form a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger
tips. And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is;
reality is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories
and speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His
quality and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data
and he hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in
newspapers. Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have
been its supreme director.
His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I
doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take
back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to
Art Deco handle this Monday.
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence
that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive
corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:
And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except,
bizarrely, it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly
was one of the first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:
The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki
Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States
will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.
"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that
this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's
role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should
be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."
The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:
The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which
demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem,
dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in
direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic,
after all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was
suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley.
On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the
darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."
@utu
Art Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I
suppose his views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US
right-wingers (a serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
@German_readerOfficial justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons
The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had
them. If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the
ostensive cause for the invasion.
I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue
about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize
the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.
The WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including
Brits or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.
@German_readerit makes little sense to attack him personally
Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so
I must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a
hopeless case.
The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and
semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.
Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s,
with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no
accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the
leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
@utu
With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an
"organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over
multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the
American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his
views aren't unusual.
@German_reader
Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm
angry at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying
himself with drugs or whatever.
@Felix
Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should
have been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
@Felix
Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are
the main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan
people in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like
Russia leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.
As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv.
Maidan itself was a cross-section -- of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war vets,
workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students, nor
was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the western
half of the country.
Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:
Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:
Azov people in their native Kharkiv:
Kharkiv kids:
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the
locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is
being invaded.
@AP
Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.
To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types,
though they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from
being exclusively liberal student-types.
@German_readerStill hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was
the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and
replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed
because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished
100%.
A few points:
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles -- ever since the Revolution. Russia has been an
American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit -- in EVERY major American
conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major
compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France.
Russia and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles -- they like Hollywood movies, American music, American
idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in
WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government.
Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt
scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the
CIA-backed 2004 and 2014 coups. Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is
clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still
Ukrainian
@Felix
Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it
covered different regions and used the same methodology.
Takeaway:
1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when
it was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.
2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls)
in Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this
matter.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness
with the Ukraine before 2014).
4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far
more difficult -- and probably best left for sometime in the future.
5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile"
sentiment within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep,"
then AP is quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by
Putin's vacillations in 2014.
@German_readerthey [Germans] should certainly spend more for their own defense, maybe even bring back
conscription .
With all due respect, and making allowance for your relative youth, that is simply
rubbish. Defense against whom? Russia? Iran? As your posts make it eminently clear, the
real enemy of Germany is within, not without.
The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government
Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.
To be clear -- Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where his
powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election
accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional
powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of
these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as
referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown
in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.
There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange
entity that is not Russian.
A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian
idealism. Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a
place such as Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this
uniformly "Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.
You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not
Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.
But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and
largely ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily
Russified but ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk
(80% Ukrainian, 20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63%
Ukrainian, 21% Russian).
The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of
Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have
friendly ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia,
but did not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians
who would nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA
grabbed a chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in
which Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using
Russian-supplied bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being
with Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass
unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).
'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it
less caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to
supporting your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be
opposed, even by your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the
dutifully loyal and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any
comment?
@Anatoly
Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider
to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in comtemporary Ukraine, where you will go
to prison for displaying Russian flag -- who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?
In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the
reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The
same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine -- I'm fairly certain of it.
Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye,
and Kherson
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile
of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to
Russian takeover by self-deporting -- they have the money and resources to do it.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic
profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.
Repeating your claim over and over again doesn't make it true.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at
least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014,
during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in
Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in
Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect
82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were
not mostly rich, fey hipsters.
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of
society.
So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia
are the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I
don't agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are
the most easily manipulated by Russian propoganda -- a lot of this went on in the Donbas,
and we can see the results of that fiasco to this day.
a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first
derivative of incompetence) to understand that -- this is largely the problem with most
"Western" elites.
b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and
clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have
"global" appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's
services that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own
severe military-political limitations.
c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve
real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the
tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".
@AP I
like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose
as Ukraine's "defender" here:
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down
upon by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian
nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student
who dodges draft. It's just the way it is.
One substantial correction: generation which now is in power and defines most of
Russia's dynamics, age group of 40s-50s, was largely influenced by British music, not
American one, despite its definite presence in cultural menu in 1960 through 1980s. British
music was on the order of magnitude more popular and influential in USSR. The love for
American music was rather conditional and very selective. Of course, jazz was and is huge
among educated and cultured, but in terms of pop/rock if one discounts immensely popular
Eagles (for obvious reason), Donna Summer or something on the order of magnitude of
Chicago, British pop-music was a different universe altogether. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Deep
Purple or even British Glam were immense in 1970s, not to mention NWBHM in 1980s. One would
have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia than music of
Michael Jackson.
@AP
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents,
for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns
and perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security
services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose
a major challenge.
@Anon
Yes, a highly intelligent, hardworking, conservative, Christian Asian woman who loves and
appreciates America, is the same as a Muslim African, Arab or Paki whose religion tells him
to subjugate or kill us. No drastic difference in genetics or the impact on our culture,
language, economy, and security there.
Moreover, allowing our native-born white citizens to choose spouses from elsewhere is
the same as admitting tens of millions of people with little to no screening whatsoever
(the latter being admitted in the interest of those who actively seek the most dimwitted,
violent, intimidating, slothful, hateful, and incompatible people psosible in order to
endanger, impoverish, and dumb down out people and set the stage for us to "need" a police
state to manage the chaos and crime they bring).
Your logic is impeccable, I'll admit.
How long have you been married, by the way? And how many children are you raising? I
just ask because I am sure we can compare notes and I can benefit from your manly
experience and expertise.
Get a consistent handle to use on this site. Then tell us personal details as many of us
have done. Then we can have a further friendly chat, big anonymous man who comments on
other men's wives.
@Felix
Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in
Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of
them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security
guards and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school
headmaster, though I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class
entrepreneur types (e.g. the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and
similar. I think outright criminal types are a small minority. Since it costs money to
attend the matches, outright failures (the permanently unemployed and similar
ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
One would have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia
than music of Michael Jackson.
What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous
1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I think Metallica in its prime and Pantera
right before they became really big (and heavy).
@LondonBobArt Deco is a Zionist, just checkout his reaction when you point out Israel assassinated
JFK.
My reaction is that you need to take your risperidal, bathe, and quit pestering people
for bits of cash. And make your clinic appointments. They're sick of seeing you at the
ED.
@reiner
Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of
their pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including
murder, kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime,
because they are considered "heroes" or something.
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine.
If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan
war veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.
Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector
are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.
These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.
As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra
community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.
A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an
office worker, a student who dodges draft
Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office
workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted
for nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012
parliamentary elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that
oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv
oblast in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic
opposition is in Russia.
I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime.
They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but
they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering.
But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS
also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds,
and were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.
@Talhahe seemed like a humble man with faith from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate
to someone like that.
Carter was an agribusinessman whose personal net worth (not counting his mother's
holdings and siblings' holdings) was in seven digits in 1976. (His dipso brother managed
the family business -- passably well -- from 1963 until 198?). John Osborne interviewed
1st, 2d, and 3d degree relations of Carter during the campaign and discovered the family
was in satisfactory condition financially even during the Depression. Carter also spent the
2d World War -- the whole thing -- at the Naval Academy.
There's much to be said for Carter, but there's no doubt one of his shortcomings is
vanity. Harry Truman is the closest thing to a humble man in the White House in the years
since Pakistan was constituted. If you're looking for 'humble beginnings', the best
examples are Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.
@Art
Deco Not relevant re humble beginnings but re Pakistan: you've probably heard the
famous anecdote about Kennedy and Bhutto:
K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my
cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of
delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources,
bigger guns and perhaps even political power
Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in
Donbas, they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas
who are similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are
ethnic Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to
fight against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined
similar pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working
class, security guards, etc.
Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student
activists and businessmen.
And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,
They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that
there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to
make the effort worthwhile.
@Anon
Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
@reiner
Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.
My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are
willing to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP
says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I
don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing to rat
them out.
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling
far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of
themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new
reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did.
Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant
types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass
republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares
with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local
Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
@utuOut of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
Actually, it's completely random and bizarre, but random and bizarre appeals to a
certain sort of head case. Oliver Stone's thesis (that the military-industrial complex took
down the President by subcontracting the job to a bunch of French Quarter homosexuals) is
comparatively lucid.
AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities.
But I don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing
to rat them out.
About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian
nationalists in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after
2014 many of the hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left
Donetsk. Furthermore anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So
there would be plenty of local support for native insurgents.
Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of
Donetsk reconcile themselves with Kiev?
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is
only 25% Russian.
With Donbas -- there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the
Donbas and Aidar battalions.
@AP It
was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until
Maidanists overthrew his friend
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable. And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him
being intimidated by Azov militia.
These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually
coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea
did
The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining
Russia that are Kharkivites.
The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to
Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas.
But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in
Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support
(versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many
of the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some
settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard
enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being
intimidated by Azov militia.
This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see
itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for
Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended. It's wide open!
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you
Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing
more than a blackshirted illusionist.*
@for-the-record
German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become
pretty clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous
extremists. We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't
drag us into their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't
react much to the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally
dependent on the Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be
foolish to have no credible deterrence.
"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city
in order to to take it under their control?"
They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage,
then welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do?
lol
While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the
city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your
idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and
the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended.
Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is
2014-2015. It is comforting for them.
Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around
Donbas.
Here is a map of various positions in 2017:
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units
such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.
It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible
Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and
Odessa.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some
50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy
(LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a
lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which
limits their ability field an army.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.
@APSo your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with
flowers.
The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni
centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).
How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what
is its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric
bomb while they are sleeping?
Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and
it didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a
completely different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a
better army, so it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.
@German_reader
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would
be foolish to have no credible deterrence.
What "credible deterrence" are you proposing for Germany? As has been clearly
demonstrated, the only credible deterrence against a determined foe (of which Germany has
none, at least externally) is nuclear. Is this what you are suggesting?
Germany has willingly supported the US (presumably in continuing gratitude for US
support during the Cold War), it hasn't been "blackmailed" into this. Austria, on the other
hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with
a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany? There
is no need whatsoever for Germany to build up its military strength; rather, what Germany
(sorely) lacks is the desire (and guts) to act independently of the US.
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is
comforting for them.
Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on
which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere
near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and
Japan.
What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous 1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I
think Metallica in its prime and Pantera right before they became really big (and
heavy).
Metallica primarily and AC/DC. Pantera were more of a bonus. Nowhere near massive
popularity of AC/DC and Metallica, who were main attraction. Earlier, in 1988, so called
Moscow Peace Festival also saw a collection of heavy and glam metal luminaries such as
Motley Crue, Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Scorpions, of course, etc. But, of course, Ozzy was met
with a thunder by Luzhniki stadium. The only rock royalty who was allowed to give a first
ever concert on Red Square was Sir Paul, with Putin being personally present. Speaks
volumes. British rock was always dominant in USSR. In the end, every Soviet boy who was
starting to play guitar had to know three chords of the House of the Rising Sun. Russians
are also very progressive rock oriented and in 1970s Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant etc. were
huge. Soviet underground national anthem was Uriah Heep's masterpiece of July Morning. I
believe Bulgaria still has July Morning gatherings every year. All of it was British
influence. My generation also grew up with British Glam which for us was a pop-music of the
day -- from Sweet to Slade, to T.Rex. And then there was: QUEEN.
@for-the-recordAustria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US
"umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and
Chile), so why couldn't Germany?
Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use
for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of
Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a
state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that,
you risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean
Germany should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient
forces to protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the
German army should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in
places like Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding
Russia it's still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree
vehemently with such insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia,
but it would be stupid not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent
hostilities after all). I don't think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just
realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities
maybe some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its
own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to
be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could
eventually become possible or necessary.
@Felix
Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but
according to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000
reservists! For a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:
@Art
Deco A lot of what used to be manufacturing, such as engineering design, is now put
under the category of services. Manufacturing companies want to be listed as engaged in
services because manufacturing is perceived as not profitable. Britain is alone among
comparable countries in having lost significant amounts of productive capacity.
K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my
cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."
The thing about many of these corrupt, worthless and incompetent Third World leaders is
they're not lacking in self-esteem. Just ask Karzai. Or Maliki.
@Art
Deco The potential power of China is an order of magnitude greater than Japan. After
WW2 Japan, and to a lesser extent Germany, were too small to be a threat. Don't you believe
all that Robert Kagan 'the US solved the problems that caused WW1 and 2′ stuff. China
is a real hegemon in the making and they will take a run at it, unless they are contained
by military pressure on their borders.
Modern Japan is more like Singapore than China. China has economies of scale, they have
a single integrated factory complex making laptops with has more workers than the British
army. China will have a huge home market, like America. So by the time it dawns on America
that China's growing power must be checked, economic measures will be ineffective.
@Art
DecoAustria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have
a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
That's about right, yes. Except I didn't say that Germany should have no military
capability, only that there is no sense in increasing current military expenditure. A
military capability can be useful for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and
hurricanes.
@Art
DecoThey've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision
you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a
decade from now.
Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward,
Asiatic, mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good
stuff: European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and
none of the bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil
strife.
Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this
into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live
in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The
problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize
Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.
The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice
that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather
quickly.
@SeanModern Japan is more like Singapore than China.
There are 120 million people living in Japan, settlements of every size, and
agricultural land sufficient for Japan to supply demand for rice from domestic production.
So, no.
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at
least three reasons:
(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's
advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.
Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once
watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they
know also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising
conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian
troops moved further westward.
(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already
written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles
can stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia,
among other things.
(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too,
would be jeopardized by more military action.
@inertial
1. You fancy they're bamboozled and you're not. Cute.
2. You also fancy your interlocutors are economic illiterates and that they'll buy into
the notion that the solution to the Ukraine's economic problems is to be forcibly
incorporated into Russia. Such a change in political boundaries addresses no
economic problems.
@Swedish
Family(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to
Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim"
narrative.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of
the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. T
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
I've been all over the comment boards calling for my country (the USA) to take a less
belligerent, more honest, friendlier approach to Russia, and I've largely taken the side of
Russia in the Ukraine and Syria controversies.
I also don't think Russia has any current designs on the territory of its western
neighbors, or the desire for the dire consequences that would likely follow as the US and
others react to such a move.
But that doesn't mean that it's prudent for Germany (or any other smaller, less populous
country near Russia) to simply trust that Russia will never use military force against them
in the future.
Nor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take
their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.
Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the UK. None
of them should purport to predict well into the future that Russia, China, and others
(Turkey) will never be both willing and able to invade them. Nor should Germany et al.
assume that the USA will always be in a position to jump in to defend Europeans in the
absence of serious European militaries.
In fact, the western Europeans' glaring military weakness (and their obvious loss of the
will to defend their people, their land, and their way of life) could serve to encourage
physical aggression by, e.g., Turkey or Russia. Betting that you need a military merely
"for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and hurricanes" is a potentially fatal
bet, with irreversible consequences.
@Johann
Ricke So the costs of the US invasion/occupation/"reconstruction" of Iraq were
(allegedly) less than the costs of the equally unnecessary and non-defensive US wars in
Korea and Vietnam? Heck of an argument.
How about this: we should have refrained from all three wars.
We should be using our resources to secure our own borders, to police the international
waters and vital shipping lanes / chokepoints (fighting pirates and terrorists as necessary
to those ends), and to actually defend our land and our people and deter aggression. That's
it.
Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the
UK.
Grossly inadequate for what purpose?
What matters about military strength is its relation to neighbours' and potential
enemies' strengths. Germany's military spending currently ranks number nine in the world
(using the SIPRI
figures per Wikipedia for simplicity ), which when you consider they are located in the
middle of one of the safest continents (militarily speaking) in the world, surrounded by
allies with whom military conflict is currently pretty much inconceivable, is quite
impressive. Above them are only its European allies UK and France, the grossly bloated US
and Saudi Arabian budgets, Russia and China, and Japan and India. Apart from South Korea
who come next, Germany spends half as much again as the next on the list (Italy).
Germany's military shortcomings can in no plausible degree be attributed to not spending
enough, unless you think Germany should be remilitarising for a potential war with Russia.
Basically, Germany's military is toothless mostly because nobody in Germany really thinks
it matters, nobody expects to be involved in a war, and such spending as it has is mostly
purposed to suit a Germany integrated into NATO and the EU rather than an independent
state. If there's a problem it's not down to insufficient spending but to how the money is
currently spent.
Like you I'm a general believer in having a strong military, and in "si vis pacem, para
bellum". But it's hard to see how Germany could really benefit from increased military
spending. If they were to feel genuinely threatened, nuclear weapons would make much more
sense (along with a radical reorganisation of the current spending and conventional
military establishment).
There's a lot of American nonsense talked about European states underspending on their
military, but the reality is that the US grossly overspends to serve its own global
interventionist purposes. There's no reason why European states should spend to serve those
purposes, which is what in reality increased European spending in the current context would
be used for.
What we might see in some potential circumstances is increased German (and European in
general) military spending in order to give them the confidence to break away from NATO and
US control, and build the long trailed "European Defence Force". That looks a lot more
likely after Brexit and in the context of the Trump presidency than it did a few years ago,
but it's still something of a distant possibility. In that case, though, the increases
would be mainly for morale building and transitional spending purposes, given that the
combined EU military budget is already second in the world, behind only the ludicrous
US.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out
of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in
their deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole
victimhood.
And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the
survival of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard
influential Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian,
and if you read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.
But the EU isn't merely a threat to self-government anymore. It is now actively and
intentionally importing people who kill, rape, mug, beat, grope, harass, stalk, and
generally disrespect and intimidate "their own" European people. The EU is an active threat
to the lives and physical safety of European people. No people with the barest common sense
and will to live will stay in the EU as these recent horrific events continue to
unfold.
@RadicalCenterNor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take
their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.
This is really a case of misplaced priorities.
Germany is in the process of losing its national identity built up over 2,000 years or
so, and it has nothing to do with the Chinese (or the Russians either, for that matter).
And China certainly doesn't need its military to successfully export its "massive,
overcrowded, ambitious population" overseas (cf. Western Canada, Australia).
Focusing on the (non-existent, in my opinion) need for Germany to increase its current
(already high) level of military expenditures will do nothing to preserve Germany as a
European nation.
@for-the-record
Take a look at my other comments. You'll see that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the
moral sickness, cowardice, misplaced guilty, and terminal naivete of the Germans leading
them to surrender their land, their property, their way of life, and their very lives to
the Muslim and African savages they are importing.
As a recent book by a German politician put it, "Deutschland schafft sich ab", or
"Germany does away with itself."
But what has that to do with Germany also refusing to maintain a serious military
defense force to deter potential threats from state actors such as Russia, Turkey, and
China? Any nation worth its salt must both secure / guard its orders AND keep a military
ready to fight external forces. Germany can and should do both, and right now it's doing
neither.
@for-the-record
As for China in particular: of course China is glad to export millions of its people to
settle and become citizens in the USA, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the former
"West."
They are thereby en route to acquiring real social influence, and ultimately some direct
political power, in those places (especially Australia and the provinces of "British"
Columbia and Alberta, owing to the very small white populations of those places compared to
the immigration onslaught).
I lived part-time in Richmond and Vancouver, BC, and know just how quickly that region
is becoming an alien culture -- Chinese more than anything, but also Muslim, Hindu, and
Sikh. (Look up the career of crooked "Canadian" former pol and now radio-host Kash Heed,
among many other examples.) I would expect that Mandarin will eventually become a co-equal
official language of government (and public schools) in BC, with no effective opposition by
those ever-"tolerant" Canadians ("We're not like those racist Americans, you know!").
But the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is
still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its
population. Actually outright TAKING swathes of Europe or, say, Africa, would help them a
lot more than immigration. When the time is right -- say, after the US dollar loses its
world reserve status and/or the US is beset by widespread racial conflict and riots --
China may well make its move in that regard. I hope not, and I don't think it will be very
soon, but a wise country needs a strong military in the face of China and other
threats.
@Felix
Keverich Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military
since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).
Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession --
with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable.
Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the
beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized.
If there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at
the very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been
purged of its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage
of its remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has
more than made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in
military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%. This translates to an effective
quadrupling in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan
economic collapse. Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict,
and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the
happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.
The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the
airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready.
250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.
Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to
feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.
Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2
billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting
through.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine,
and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary
in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go
into the Republic military.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine,
and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian
world, and the world at large.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians --
no Russian went there to get rich.
That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let
alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO
member Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are
the chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of
Russia, which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of
civilization?
@Anatoly
Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than
reported elsewhere.
Mobilization percentages by region:
"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the
Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia
oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."
Summary:
2014:
The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas -- they were nothing more than a
fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement
with the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they
were representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective
of service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the
Russian army
2017:
The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to
the soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the
state to adapt the army's structure -- for the first time since its creation -- to real
operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of
training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a
close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian
armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and
are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event
of a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast
majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital
interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their
own vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with
Russia, but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in
a situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of
mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine
now has the best army it has ever had in its history.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively
well trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of
veterans of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry).
It must be stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of
the veterans of the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had
served in the Donbas in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with
266,000 reservists gaining combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400
reservists were in the armed forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human
factor, it should be possible in a relatively short period of time to increase the
Ukrainian army's degree of combat readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close
battle with a comparable opponent, something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable
of doing at the beginning of 2014.
@Art
Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which
I disagree with you).
I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian
population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several
decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who
deserves no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial
drain but having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have
been worth it (I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of
being groomed for such a role).
Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian
population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of
militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money,
and loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle
East conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is,
that it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR
would have been sunk.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
-- no Russian went there to get rich.
Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local
volunteers are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a
wrecked, sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets.
They are more important than their % indicates.
@melanf
What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how
they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively
petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU
commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not
important. It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate
the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things
don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South
Africa they were not new, but you know what I mean).
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by
US and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have
brainwashed all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and
milk, people of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of
DemoNcracy made in USA.
@melanf
I think it's mostly Gerard2. Mr. Hack is fairly hostile but coldly civil. Don't think this
compares to Runet xoxlosraches at all (of course I try to cut any such developments in the
bud).
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means
to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic
sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating
over after the Maidan coup.
So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is
probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial
belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine
has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by
USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and
exudes of skilled people.
What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of
a great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access,
unlimited cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at
double price.
Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian
know the best and able to decde themselves.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least
three reasons:
Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than
it has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve,
or engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad
hand as well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were
made, and perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of
some of the key oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the
separatists in eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with
much more of the eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame
for the situation in Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not
Putin.
In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even
exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic
patience and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.
The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent
stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine
into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be
the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.
@Anatoly
Karlin If presenting a Ukrainophile point of view at this website is considered to be
'pretty hostile' then so be it. I cannot countenance the slimy way that Gerard2 reponds to
AP's comments. He was getting way out of line with his name calling and needed to be put in
his place.
@RadicalCenterBut the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is
still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its
population.
As we speak, about 8.5% of the value-added in China's economy is attributable to
agriculture and about 27% of the workforce is employed in agriculture. Industry and
services are not land-intensive activities.
About 1/2 of China's land area consists of arid or alpine climates suitable for only
light settlement. As for the rest, China's entire non-agricultural population could be
settled at American suburban densities on about 23% of the whole.
You don't need 'natural resources' on site to 'sustain your population'. Imports of oil
and minerals will do. As for foodstuffs, China's been a net importer since 2004. However,
its food-trade deficit is currently about $35 bn, a single-digit fraction of China's total
food consumption.
You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right?
A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under
$5 billion.
Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money
than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers
and their wages rather than qualitatively impoving capabilities of the army.
The bottomline is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash
with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and
control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian
conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are
unclear.
AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something
akin to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in
Aleppo. A more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their
uniforms, once they realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.
@Felix
Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters
more, since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.
By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%.
Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.
What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from
the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming
no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would
have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even
dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
@Gerard2
We'd all benefit if you'd sober up and add brevity and humor to your emotional outbursts
and trash talk. No need for much verbiage in the absence of substantive information.
@AP
The American occupation of Japan lasted 7 years, not 'several decades'. Japan was quite
capable of rapid and autonomous economic development without the assistance of the United
States or any other power. Neither was the United States government the author of Japanese
parliamentary institutions, which antedate the war. There were certain social reforms
enacted during the MacArthur regency (I think having to do with the agricultural sector).
The emperor's power was further reduced in the 1946 constitution. A portion of the
flag-rank military were put in front of firing squads. That's about it.
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk. You've seen severe internal
disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the
Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq. If you want to understand this,
you have to look to how Arab societies themselves are ordered (in contrast to interwar or
post-war German society).
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't
you think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in
Kharkov. That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece,
create local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on
the ground.
In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale
American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in
2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of
Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as
was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine.
Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities
out of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something
(one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is
a ridiculous concept at best.
"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary."
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better!
LOL
Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight
because they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that
Ukraine is in total collapse, back to the 90s.
We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked
factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for
some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than
Donbas so this could be more complicated.
@Anatoly
KarlinHow so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population)
worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.
You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's
productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to
1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what
Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in
which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive
capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing
escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).
Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth
the candle.
@Art
Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly
pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I
think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't
there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an
invasion would have been justified)
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?
You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria,
Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central
Iraq.
Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains
stability and peace, or if one does so -- take on the responsibility of investing massive
effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would erupt
as a result of one's invasion.
@Anatoly
Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of
Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians
they could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the
West and South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point
they will likely surrender.
After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command
and control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other
infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two
years earlier.
Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not
even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces.
The question will not be in this:
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two
years earlier.
By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an
organized formation or even units left -- anything larger than platoon will be hunted down
and annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in
Russian "ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY
C4ISR capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the
East would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but
Russia has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than
merely probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade. I
will open some "secret" -- nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were
subjected to collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the
bacillus of Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those
moyahataskainikam experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were
used way better than paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.
P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping
hole -- Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential
exponentially. Ukies? Not so much -- some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of
2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been
delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and
politics is everything.
I think you mean Western Europe. If Germany's human capital drains to Poland et al in a
reversal of the Cold War direction, those countries have a quite bright future. I wonder if
any economic predictions have taken this into account yet.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that.
I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough
massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple
thousand armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of
expensive damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure
Donbas, would probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want
Russia to invade them.
And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like,
and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.
To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian
military personnel.
The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes
hot in Ukraine -- it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said
Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General
Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be
destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many
Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control
escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you
get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such
that Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably
forced to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do
something. Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing
the start of a major shitstorm.
Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect
existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.
A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before
Russia/Stalin/Lenin created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most
populated areas in Ukraine are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite
spoken by most Ukrainians ( see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even
though he speaks fluent Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian
too), the millions of Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what
exactly is a Ukrainian is obselete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian
relative the level of intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical
people.
AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.
@APThis suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would
have been much harder than doing so for Japan.
That was never the object. The object was (1) to remove a hostile government and (2)
replace it with a normal range government. Normal range governments aren't revanchist,
aren't territorially grabby, are chary about subverting neighboring governments, and aren't
in their international conduct notably driven by pride or political theo-ideology. The
House of Saud, the Hashemites, Lebanon's parliamentary bosses, the Turkish military, the
(post-Nasser) Egyptian military, etc. etc are all purveyors of normal-range government. NPR
likely has transcripts of interview programs in early 2003 in which Wm. Kristol was a
participant. Kristol was not a public official at the time, but he was the opinion-monger
who most assiduously promoted the conquest of Iraq. Kristol never expected Iraq to be like
Switzerland; he expected an Iraq that was 'tense' (his words), pluralistic, and willing to
live in its international environment rather than against that environment.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in
power?
I suspect the Shia and Kurd populations are pleased to be rid of the Baathists.
@Mr.
Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and
decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.
As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the
west were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup
and then the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works
out in Ukraine ( for the better)
@Art
Deco I was speaking of 2003. Of course, for much of its history Saddam's regime was not
that. Too bad it wasn't stopped then, if it was going to be stopped.
@S3
Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in
the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is
what he meant.
@Art
Deco When calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany,
Italy and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and
risen greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.
[...]All of those supposedly knowledge-intensive services sell mostly to manufacturing
firms, so their success depends on manufacturing success. It is not because the Americans
invented superior financial techniques that the world's financial centre moved from
London to New York in the mid-20th century. It is because the US became the leading
industrial nation.
The weakness of manufacturing is at the heart of the UK's economic problems. Reversing
three and a half decades of neglect will not be easy but, unless the country provides its
industrial sector with more capital, stronger public support for R&D and
better-trained workers, it will not be able to build the balanced and sustainable economy
that it so desperately needs.
@SeanWhen calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany, Italy
and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and risen
greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.
"Not very much" according to whom? Manufacturing accounts for about 15% of Europe's
domestic product, about 12% of that for North America, and about 8% for that of the
Antipodes. It's higher in the Far East (about 24%), but Japan is in no danger of overtaking
the United States in per capita product, it's larger manufacturing sector notwithstanding.
There is no region of the globe bar the Far East where that sector much exceeds 15% of
total value added. Comparatively large manufacturing sectors are characteristic of the more
affluent middle income countries. As countries grow more productive and affluent, their
consumption patterns and productive capacity shift to services.
I've no clue why you and this fellow at The Guardian have bought into the notion
that there is something magical about manufacturing (it was a popular meme a generation
ago, promoted by Felix Rohaytn). By way of example, Germany and Japan have lost ground
economically to the UK and the US in the last 25 years, even though they devote ~21% of
their productive capacity to manufacturing in contrast to the ~11%.of the Anglosphere.
(Germany remains more affluent than Britain to the tune of about 11%, but about 15% less
affluent than the United States).
@Art
Deco Sorry, mistake. I meant when you do the comparison with constant prices,
manufacturing has not declined very much in the US ect . Britain is different it has lost a
lot of manufacturing. Britain cannot build its own nuclear power station. Germany and
France have taken the industry and would have come for the City next. Britain was to be the
milch cow of the EU, so it got out.
Switzerland is a rich mans country and so is Sweden. Business runs certain countries and
those countries are actually adding to their productive capacity, so they are not acting
like it is not profitable. That Guardian fellow is a professor of Economics at Oxford, and
I already quoted you Lord Weinstock who ran just about Britain's most profitable company:
it wasn't doing services. Once Weinstock retired his successor listened to the City
financial geniuses, sold the manufacturing core of the business, and when times got bad the
had nothing to fall back on and collapsed.
Germany does not have a single currency and Schengen Agreement free movement with the
US. German goods are expensive in the US, the single currency and Schengen Agreement are an
export promotion program for Germany industry. The Germans are going to deindustrialise the
rest of the EU. Britain realised it had to get out now or be borged.
@Sean
Britain hasn't lost any manufacturing output. It indubitably has fewer workers employed in
manufacturing, but manufacturing output has not declined. What's happened is that growth in
production since 1990 has been concentrated in the service sector.
The decline in the salience of manufacturing in the British economy has been more rapid
than it has elsewhere, but the same basic story has played out. The share of value added
attributable to manufacturing hit bottom in Britain in 2006, btw.
As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they
are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts. Hence
low demand. Running Britain on a London and the SE boom on the rationale that the country
is economically stronger relative to Germany and Japan is unstable because the strength of
the country in not increasing in any meaningful sense. The recent votes in Britain should
have made it clear that the country is not more stable for all the economic "success". The
people feel Britain is getting weaker compared to Germany.
No one doubts that Britain has a manufacturing problem and the inefficiency is at
the root of the loss of manufacturing but other counties are basically not the same, and
that is why Britain left the EU. Germany is playing the manufacturing game on its own terms
inside the EU with a single currency.
There is. Manufacturing productivity can easily be increased. Agriculture is more
difficult, and by the time its fully motorized, it's already a very small portion of the
total output. While services productivity is very low and cannot be easily increased. So an
economy with no manufacturing cannot raise its productivity much. It's also more difficult
to export services, so countries with low manufacturing will often experience huge current
account deficits.
High value added services can be risky, especially finance, which makes the country
vulnerable to credit cycles. The UK could export most financial services while credit was
easy. During the credit crunch it suddenly exported way less. So it's very pro-cyclical,
more so than manufacturing, because such countries still need to service their oversized
(due to the size of the financial sector) debts and obligations. It makes them too
leveraged.
@SeanAs I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low
they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours
contracts.
No, I don't know that. The compensation scales in various industrial sectors (as a % of
the mean across all private sectors) are as follows:
Utilites: 206%
Management of companies and enterprises: 201%
Mining: 178%
Information: 176%
Finance: 173%
Professional, scientific and technical services: 156%
Wholesale Trade: 127%
Manufacturing: 119%
Construction: 103%
Real estate: 99%
Transportation and Warehousing: 99%
Health Care and Social Assistance: 92%
Educational services [private]: 82%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation: 81%
Administrative and waste management services: 70%
Miscellaneous svs: 69%
Accommodation: 63%
Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry: 63%
Retail trade: 60%
Wages in manufacturing are above the mean. More sophisticated technology means you're
left with fewer employees (but with the skill sets to operate the machinery). (About 11% of
the private sector workforce is in manufacturing).
@SeanAs I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low
they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts.
Hence low demand.
They're not running a current account deficit of 4.4% of gdp because they're suffering
from 'low demand'
@AP
Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage war? Must
respectfully and strenuously disagree. We would be constantly at war if that were the
standard. And, in fact, we HAVE been constantly at war. It has to stop.
@S3
Great point, S3, and I will correct my comment to exclude Eastern Europe from the
prediction of likely substantial non-Muslim flight ("Eastern Europe" meaning, for this
purpose, Poland, Hungary, Belarus if it is not so foolish as to join the EU, and whatever
is left of Ukraine that is not re-claimed by Russia).
But I'd also predict likely substantial "flight of non-Muslims out of Western and
perhaps CENTRAL Europe", unfortunately.
Because I am not at all convinced, yet, that Austria will not continue to be colonized
by Muslims. Austria may be colonized at a slower pace than Germany if the new Austrian
government seriously secures its borders, deports some existing invaders who have not been
granted citizenship yet, and refuses to take any new Muslim and/or African/Arab
"refugees."
But even if that occurs, as I fervently hope, Muslims apparently will continue to
constitute an ever-larger share of Austria's population -- based simply on the huge
difference in fertility rates among non-Muslims compared to Muslims there. Even without any
new immigration to Austria, an improbably happy state of affairs, Austrians simply don't
have enough children to replace themselves. Not even close.
With Austrian TFR so persistently low, all Muslims in Austria need to do is maintain a
TFR at replacement (say, 2.1), and they will take over the country.
That new government had better get to work if they don't want to see Austrians fleeing
east (or to the USA) along with the droves of Germans who will certainly be underway.
Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage
war
Yes. That doesn't necessarily mean we should have done it, even if that were the reason.
As you said, we can't keep doing this everywhere all the time. Nor am I claiming it is
possible (it was done in Japan but Japan is not Iraq). But if we did invade, and then did
whatever had to be done to transform the place from a Baathist dictatorship with radical
Islam simmering underneath, into a stable, decent, secular, Christian-tolerant and allied
country, that would have been legitimate.
@RadicalCenter
Does Austria have anything like the US's RICO Act? Creating something like it and
generously applying it to immigrant crime would be one of my suggestions, a
California-style three-strikes law would be another.
The in-your-face pro-natality propaganda does not seem to be working. So maybe something
subtler is required, like asking television and film studios to produce more traditional
role-models for women. More scenes of doting mothers and adorable babies. And yes, Kurz's
wife should definitely be given a role.
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take
back all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.
Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has
even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile
batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while
Russia must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.
So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose
this game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move
to America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a
matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.
The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when
the chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft
blown out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is
reduced to eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's
East come into their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he
made Hitler look like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if
America were to get involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops
in a matter of days while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and
WW2 combined.
Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni
Arabs any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would
never have got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.
But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the
Olympics. But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its
only momentarily after all.
@gTLook at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world.
Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the
United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found
in about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of
having a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command
had 2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an
American possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers
resident, and that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On
the entire African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.
And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.
I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally
inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now
experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies." Seems its not
only the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they
actually liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks
rot away.
@Art
Deco Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing,
Singapore is first. Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual
economy.
Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual economy.
Well, you're not looking for them.
Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing, Singapore
is first.
About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing. You
find the same ratio in Serbia, which no one will mistake for an affluent and economically
dynamic country.
2. Neither the Japanese Emperor nor the President of Germany take an oath of allegiance
to the United States or any American official.
3. Neither the Chancellor of Germany nor the Prime Minister of Japan are incapable of
making a decision without consulting the U.S. Embassy. (Manned by Caroline Kennedy at one
point in Japan).
About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing.
The amusing thing is that the stock-in-trade of both Switzerland and Singapore is some
combo of private banking, tax-avoidance and money laundering. That's why the per capita
income is so high. It's bloated by the portfolio income of wealthy people like Marc Rich,
Robert Mugabe and Zuckerberg's Brazilian business partner.
And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are
being made that Robert Mueller's sleuths gained access to Trump transition emails
illicitly.
This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller's team, already under a cloud for proven malice
toward the president.
Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, walked
free when it was learned that the White House "Plumbers" had burgled his psychiatrist's
office.
@Art
Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,
and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in
Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an
American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your countrymen
didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
@Art
Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 --
Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the
outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible
at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or even Islamist
in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq anymore the worst
thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (bad, but hardly
an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to deal with his regime in
coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them in place for the
foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was purely a war of
choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its
own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather questionable, it's
you who needs to get out more.
@Art
Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the
Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of
Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every
night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).
I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the
supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually
taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed that
the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but it
never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians, but
that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that there
was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time after
the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are totally
unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.
Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies,
especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO,
especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists among
them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts for their
electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like NATO wasn't
really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors (some of them).
This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.
@reiner
Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"
Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't
understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the
Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued
vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still
believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool).
But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard
not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if
they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning
point in the evolution of my political views.
As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together,
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism
like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As
well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like
obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:
That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world
affairs.
which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.
In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama took
office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US forces
in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto present on the
sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have an Iraqi
collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran, but the long
Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought hard, but were
mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US occupiers, as indeed had
much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both cases.
Military occupations are morally complicated like that.
Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni
tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.
Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of
victory and defeat on your part.
The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete
military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi
military and the occupation of the country.
However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to
impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of US
power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of the
war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of American
national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US regime
policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant, and the
overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with vigorous sunni
jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US as most ME
states are.
So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial
military victory.
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military
interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran
and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US
military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis
I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that hating
Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an accident
that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's favourite.
@Art
Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting
US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very
unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
@Art
Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely
one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was merely
a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the region
according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war increased
Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the
responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor
appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a
thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.
It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of the
charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should have
resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did not want
to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a democracy
in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for
that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the
bill always comes due.
Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished
business.
No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do so,
and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still largely
applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).
The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.
This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade
Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no
need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible
British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to
listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the
time, instead.
More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible
advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice,
and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign
policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught as
such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up trying
to rationalise it) for generations to come.
For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab
Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify,
track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes
land in Syrian airports every day.
However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new
ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis
in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge
advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.
The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.
That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.
The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is a
great idea.
As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests
Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world
whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it displays
in all the wars it has ever fought.
You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.
@Felix
Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its
control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
@Art
Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they
speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the
Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak &
correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for
non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.
Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia
run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of) the
EU.
Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so
that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo
chamber.
"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's
underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for
which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the
Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both
communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of
pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing Tikritis
or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's rule. The
big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced both Shiites
and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of Uncle Sam. They
could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without
American assistance.
* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam
Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the
gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable
one, given Iraq's strategic location.
What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American
casualties and the cost to the US treasury
No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American
national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have
seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were hugely
counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and broken former
enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined with a strong
ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.
Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the
point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those
Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers.
If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a
defeat.
But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the
Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would have
been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama was over
Syria.
However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets
that Saddam is gone
Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel
matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game of
alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war) and
regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying
something Americans don't like to hear).
They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at
bay without American assistance.
Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab
proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in
due course with Iranian backing.
In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the
south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in
Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in
desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon
beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than pretending
to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of overthrowing
the Syria government, American-style.
@German_reader
I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close
to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type,
and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's
certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments being
level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of other
topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility for the
periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.
To which I added:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming form
a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger tips.
And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is; reality
is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories and
speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His quality
and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data and he
hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in newspapers.
Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have been its
supreme director.
His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I
doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take
back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to
Art Deco handle this Monday.
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence
that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive
corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:
And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except, bizarrely,
it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly was one of the
first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:
The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki
Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States will
not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.
"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that
this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role
in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an
embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."
The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:
The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which
demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating
back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic, after
all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was
suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley.
On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness.
One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."
@utu Art
Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I suppose his
views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US right-wingers (a
serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
@German_readerOfficial justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons
The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had them.
If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the ostensive
cause for the invasion.
I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue
about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize the
ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria. The
WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including Brits
or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.
@German_readerit makes little sense to attack him personally
Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so I
must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a hopeless
case.
The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and
semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.
Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s,
with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no
accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the
leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
@utu
With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an
"organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over
multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the
American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his views
aren't unusual.
@German_reader
Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm angry
at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying himself
with drugs or whatever.
@German_readerStill hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was
the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and
replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed
because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished 100%.
@Art
Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which I
disagree with you).
I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian
population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several
decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who deserves
no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial drain but
having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have been worth it
(I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of being groomed for
such a role).
Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian
population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of
militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money, and
loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle East
conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is, that
it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR would
have been sunk.
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US
and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have brainwashed
all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and milk, people
of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of DemoNcracy
made in USA.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while
seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving
some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions
with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former
Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like
"an asset".
Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between
Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again
"unexpectedly" in charge?
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said
on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."
Clapper took aim at the news that Putin
called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent
a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."
He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed
over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not
all that visible."
The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his
interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security
agency.
"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They
recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play
here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our
president," he continued.
The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like
Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also
stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he
found the message to be contradictory.
He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the
Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."
Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security,
intelligence and foreign policy officials
filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and
Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation
and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web
operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian
businessmen," the brief reads.
"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is
his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to
the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian
operations and objectives," it continues.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of
it – the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
– some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
Especially agree with the conclusion- "Using disinformation to promote an agenda of shifting
more costs onto workers to enhance profit margins. Isn't this what Paul Ryan means by "A Better
Way"?"
He is gloating that we have more "choices" as he takes away any possible means for actually
paying for our health care. This in a nutshell is the entire GOP approach. We are free to die.
In my state, one company (BC/BS) controls 0ver 70% of the health insurance market and there are
only two other even marginally significant players. Market based my ...
Nice illustration of ideologically based ostrakism as practiced in Academia: "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People
- powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize
other insiders."
Notable quotes:
"... A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned. ..."
"... The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for ..."
"... Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same role which Marxism was installed in the USSR. With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities. ..."
"... To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality be damned. Money does not smell. ..."
"... Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys. ..."
"... "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People - powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize other insiders." ..."
At the risk of oversimplifying might it not be as simple as stronger leanings towards IS-LM and kind are indicative of a bias
towards full employment and stronger leanings towards DSGE, microfoundations, and kind are indicative of a bias towards low inflation?
IN general I consider over-simplification a fault, if and only if, it is a rigidly adhered to final position. This is to say
that over-simplification is always a good starting point and never a good ending point. If in the end your problem was simple
to begin with, then the simplified answer would not be OVER-simplified anyway. It is just as bad to over-complicate a simple problem
as it is to over-simplify a complex problem. It is easier to build complexity on top of a simple foundation than it is to extract
simplicity from a complex foundation.
A lot of the Chicago School initiative into microfoundations and DSGE may have been motivated by a desire to bind Keynes in
a NAIRU straight-jacket. Even though economic policy making is largely done just one step at a time then that is still one step
too much if it might violate rentier interests.
Darryl FKA Ron -> Barry...
There are two possible (but unlikely) schools of (generously attributed to as) thought for which internal consistency might
take precedence over external consistency. One such school wants to consider what would be best in a perfect world full of perfect
people and then just assume that is best for the real world just to let the chips fall where they may according to the faults
and imperfections of the real world. The second such school is the one whose eyes just glaze over mesmerized by how over their
heads they are and remain affraid to ask any question lest they appear stupid.
A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment
to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned.
Richard H. Serlin
Consistency sounds so good, Oh, of course we want consistency, who wouldn't?! But consistent in what way? What exactly do you
mean? Consistent with reality, or consistent with people all being superhumans? Which concept is usually more useful, or more
useful for the task at hand?
Essentially, they want models that are consistent with only certain things, and often because this
makes their preferred ideology look far better. They want models, typically, that are consistent with everyone in the world having
perfect expertise in every subject there is, from finance to medicine to engineering, perfect public information, and perfect
self-discipline, and usually on top, frictionless and perfectly complete markets, often perfectly competitive too.
But a big thing to note is that perfectly consistent people means a level of perfection in expertise, public information, self-discipline,
and "rationality", that's extremely at odds with how people actually are. And as a result, this can make the model extremely misleading
if it's interpreted very literally (as so often it is, especially by freshwater economists), or taken as The Truth, as Paul Krugman
puts it.
You get things like the equity premium "puzzle", which involves why people don't invest more in stocks when the risk-adjusted
return appears to usually be so abnormally good, and this "puzzle" can only be answered with "consistency", that people are all
perfectly expert in finance, with perfect information, so they must have some mysterious hidden good reason. It can't be at all
that it's because 65% of people answered incorrectly when asked how many reindeer would remain if Santa had to lay off 25% of
his eight reindeer ( http://richardhserlin.blogspot.com/2013/12/surveys-showing-massive-ignorance-and.html ).
Yes, these perfect optimizer consistency models can give useful insights, and help to see what is best, what we can do better,
and they can, in some cases, be good as approximations. But to say they should be used only, and interpreted literally, is, well,
inconsistent with optimal, rational behavior -- of the economist using them.
Richard H. Serlin -> Richard H. Serlin...
Of course, unless the economist using them is doing so to mislead people into supporting his libertarian/plutocratic ideology.
dilbert dogbert
As an old broken down mech engineer, I wonder why all the pissing and moaning about micro foundations vs aggregation. In strength
of materials equations that aggregate properties work quite well within the boundaries of the questions to be answered. We all
know that at the level of crystals, materials have much complexity. Even within crystals there is deeper complexities down to
the molecular levels. However, the addition of quantum mechanics adds no usable information about what materials to build a bridge
with.
But, when working at the scale of the most advanced computer chips quantum mechanics is required. WTF! I guess in economics
there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories.
Poor economists, doomed to argue, forever, over how many micro foundations can dance on the head of a pin.
RGC -> dilbert dogbert...
Endless discussions about how quantum effects aggregate to produce a material suitable for bridge building crowd out discussions
about where and when to build bridges. And if plutocrats fund the endless discussions, we get the prominent economists we have
today.
Darryl FKA Ron -> dilbert dogbert...
"...I guess in economics there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories..."
[I guess it depends upon what your acceptable confidence interval on reliability is. Most important difference that controls
all the domain differences between physical science and economics is that underlying physical sciences there is a deterministic
methodology for which probable error is merely a function of the inaccuracy in input metrics WHEREAS economics models are incomplete
probabilistic estimating models with no ability to provide a complete system model in a full range of circumstances.
YOu can design and build a bridge to your load and span requirements with alternative models for various designs with confidence
and highly effective accuracy repeatedly. No ecomomic theory, model, or combination of models and theories was ever intended to
be used as the blueprint for building an economy from the foundation up.
With all the formal trappings of economics the only effective usage is to decide what should be done in a given set of predetermined
circumstance to reach some modest desired effect. Even that modest goal is exposed to all kinds of risks inherent in assumptions,
incomplete information, externalities, and so on that can produce errors of uncertain potential bounds.
Nonetheless, well done economics can greatly reduce the risks encountered in the random walk of economics policy making. So
much so is this true, that the bigger questions in macro-economics policy making is what one is willing to risk and for whom.
The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers
are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for.]
Darryl FKA Ron -> Peter K....
unless you have a model which maps the real world fairly closely like quantum mechanics.
[You set a bar too high. Macro models at best will tell you what to do to move the economy in the direction that you seek to
go. They do not even ocme close to the notion of a theory of everything that you have in physics, even the theory of every little
thing that is provided by quantum mechanics. Physics is an empty metaphor for economics. Step one is to forgo physics envy in
pursuit of understanding suitable applications and domain constraints for economics models.
THe point is to reach a decision and to understand cause and effect directions. All precision is in the past and present. The
future is both imprecise and all that there is that is available to change.
For the most part an ounce of common sense and some simple narrative models are all that are essential for making those policy
decisions in and of themselves. HOWEVER, nation states are not ruled by economist philosopher kings and in the process of concensus
decision making by (little r)republican governments then human language is a very imprecise vehicle for communicating logic and
reason with respect to the management of complex systems. OTOH, mathematics has given us a universal language for communicating
logic and reason that is understood the same by everyone that really understands that language at all. Hence mathematical models
were born for the economists to write down their own thinking in clear precise terms and check their own work first and then share
it with others so equipped to understand the language of mathematics. Krugman has said as much many times and so has any and every
economist worth their salt.]
likbez -> Syaloch...
I agree with Pgl and PeterK. Certain commenters like Darryl seem convinced that the Chicago School (if not all of econ) is driven
by sinister, class-based motives to come up justifications for favoring the power elite over the masses. But based on what I've
read, it seems pretty obvious that the microfoundation guys just got caught up in their fancy math and their desire to produce
more elegant, internally consistent models and lost sight of the fact that their models didn't track reality.
That's completely wrong line of thinking, IMHO.
Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking
oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after
New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same
role which Marxism was installed in the USSR.
With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to
ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities.
To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality
be damned. Money does not smell.
Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining
this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys.
But the key problem with neoliberalism is that the cure is worse then disease. And here mathematical masturbations are very
handy as a smoke screen to hide this simple fact.
likbez -> likbez...
Here is how Rubin's neoliberal boy Larry explained the situation to Elizabeth Warren:
"Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People
- powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize
other insiders."
Yet another "national security parasite". Watt intentionally lied about wiretapping
Notable quotes:
"... "When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans. ..."
"... In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump. ..."
"... One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says. ..."
"... The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss. ..."
"How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election"
Listen 4:17
'Heard on All Things Considered' by Gabe O'Connor & Avie Schneider...April 3, 2017...4:53 PM ET
"When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians
used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans.
"So that way whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more
simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures," Watts told the panel, which is investigating
Russia's role in interfering in the U.S. elections.
In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says
the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump.
"If you went online today, you could see these accounts -- either bots or actual personas somewhere -- that are trying to connect
with the administration. They might broadcast stories and then follow up with another tweet that tries to gain the president's
attention, or they'll try and answer the tweets that the president puts out," Watts says.
Watts, a cybersecurity expert, says he's been tracking this sort of activity by the Russians for more than three years.
"It's a circular system. Sometimes the propaganda outlets themselves will put out false or manipulated stories. Other times,
the president will go with a conspiracy."
One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do
that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies
the message in the ecosystem," Watts says.
"Every time a conspiracy is floated from the administration, it provides every outlet around the world, in fact, an opportunity
to amplify that conspiracy and to add more manipulated truths or falsehoods onto it."
Watts says the effort is being conducted by a "very diffuse network." It involves competing efforts "even amongst hackers between
different parts of Russian intelligence and propagandists -- all with general guidelines about what to pursue, but doing it at
different times and paces and rhythms."
The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory
is a way to shift the blame for their election loss.
But Watts says "it's way bigger" than that. "What was being done by nation-states in the social media influence landscape was
so much more significant than the other things that were being talked about," including the Islamic State's use of social media
to recruit followers, he says."
"... Since Twitter is an enabler (part of the muscle) of the Deep State, the purges are no surprise. ..."
"... ... My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by Twitter & other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus, anti-elite views, whether left or right. Internet search engines now consistently suppress search results for such sites as the World Socialist Website. ..."
"... What really terrifies the elites is the possibility of a revival of the actual Left (as distinct from the Fake Left). They're terrified that people might notice that the elites are waging a vicious class war against the non-elite classes. So anyone with genuine leftwing views can expect to be purged. ..."
"... The elites aren't really worried by the alt-right, a tiny and politically entirely insignificant group. In fact they love the alt-right. The alt-right serves the Emmanuel Goldstein role admirably. Their real targets will be traitors on the Left. And that means anyone who is genuinely leftist. ..."
"... An interesting aspect of the recent censorship is that you might think good capitalism requires serving every customer and hiring on merit, and that those who discriminate are only shooting themselves in the foot. I used to make this argument myself, but it's apparently faulty. The threat of angering powerful customers outweighs the benefit of tolerating weak and despised customers. ..."
... My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by Twitter
& other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus, anti-elite
views, whether left or right. Internet search engines now consistently suppress search
results for such sites as the World Socialist Website.
You may wish to argue whether they are
a bit more/bit less active against one side or the other. Fine, but don't forget: elites are
less & less fearful of being caught censoring or suppressing freedom of expression. The
attack on net neutrality is a major thrust in this campaign. This knife cuts BOTH ways: know
your real enemy.
But apparently not a single Unz.com columnist. There's two ways to look at it. Unz.com columnists are too powerful and well-known to be censored. Or nobody important
knows who they are.
My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by
Twitter & other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus,
anti-elite views, whether left or right.
What really terrifies the elites is the possibility of a revival of the actual Left (as
distinct from the Fake Left). They're terrified that people might notice that the elites are
waging a vicious class war against the non-elite classes. So anyone with genuine leftwing views can expect to be purged.
The elites aren't really worried by the alt-right, a tiny and politically entirely
insignificant group. In fact they love the alt-right. The alt-right serves the Emmanuel
Goldstein role admirably. Their real targets will be traitors on the Left. And that means
anyone who is genuinely leftist.
An interesting aspect of the recent censorship is that you might think good capitalism
requires serving every customer and hiring on merit, and that those who discriminate are only
shooting themselves in the foot. I used to make this argument myself, but it's apparently
faulty. The threat of angering powerful customers outweighs the benefit of tolerating weak
and despised customers.
Now that censorship has been established as a normal business option
we can expect venues who do not censor to be targets of suspicion. So it may be that we are
going to need the government to step in and require information channels not to discriminate,
just as UPS doesn't care whether a package was sent by a racist or fascist, at least not in
peacetime.
he Department of Justice is refusing to release details of the process that
led to FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to be able to serve as
special counsel investigating Trump's campaign involvement with Russia during the 2016
election.
On Friday, the agency released a one-sentence memo that confirmed Mueller was granted a
conflict-of-interest waiver to serve in the position.
The waiver is believed to be related to Mueller's previous work as a partner at WilmerHale
law firm, which is also the firm that represented former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
and White House adviser Jared Kushner. However, documents signed by the Justice's top career
official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott School, provide no evidence as to the grounds
for the waiver. It's actually so vague that it doesn't even state why Mueller would
need the release.
"'Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502(d), I hereby authorize Robert Mueller's participation in the
investigation into Russia's role in the presidential campaign of 2016 and all matters arising
from the investigation,' Schools wrote in the 'authorization' signed on May 18, one day after
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein formally appointed Mueller to the position ."
The Justice Management Division of the agency found a two-page "recommendation memorandum"
per POLITICO's request, but declined releasing it because it would interfere with the
"deliberative
process inside the department."
The secrecy revolving the situation could result in some Republican lawmakers and Trump
allies to raise doubts about the impartiality of the Mueller investigation. Experts are
troubled that the Justice Department hasn't been more open about the information of Mueller's
waiver.
"'I think it's sloppy,' said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under
President George W. Bush. 'The conspiratorial side of me thinks somebody at Justice is not
giving you the explanation for the waiver because they want to create the impression that
Robert Mueller has a problem when Robert Mueller doesn't have a problem. This is going to
lead to Fox News conspiracy talk.'"
If FBI paid money for Steele dossier that would be a big scandal that can bury Mueller and Comey...
Notable quotes:
"... Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are involved in it as well. ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to say on Wednesday in front of
the House Judiciary Committee, whether the FBI paid for the infamous Trump dossier,
reports The
Daily Caller . He would neither confirm nor deny the FBI's involvement in the now-disproved
dossier that started the whole Russian collusion investigation against President Trump.
Rosenstein, who was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee, suggested that he knew the
answer to the question, which was posed by Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.
"Did the FBI pay for the dossier?" DeSantis asked.
"I'm not in a position to answer that question," Rosenstein responded.
"Do you know the answer to the question?" the Republican DeSantis followed up.
"I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee "
Rosenstein began.
DeSantis interjected to assert that the Judiciary panel has "every right to the information"
about payments for the dossier.
The Russian dossier, which was written by British spy Christopher Steele and
commissioned to do so by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, has
been the starting point to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion
in the 2016 election.
Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was
discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are
involved in it as
well.
"'According to some reports published earlier this year, Steele and the FBI struck an
informal agreement that he would be paid to continue his investigation into Trump's ties to
Russia. It has been reported that Steele was never paid for his work, though the FBI and DOJ
have not publicly disclosed those details,' reports The Daily Caller."
CNN had reported earlier this year that Steel was already compensated for some expenses from
his work investigating Trump and trying to dig up any dirt he could on the president.
The Deputy Attorney General told the House Judiciary Committee that he saw no good cause to
fire Mueller from conducting the investigation, but many Republicans believe the whole
investigation is now wrapped up in too many overlapping conflicts of interest
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense"
ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign
policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its
by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump
administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.
The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President
Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public
dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the
Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."
As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half
of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt
formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.)
Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn,
Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and
inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his
partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with
improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.
Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have
spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a
growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a
presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or
potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe
McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of
American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must
have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the
dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to
two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding
"contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I
advised.
To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and
to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow
suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The
Wall Street Journal and by
The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a
previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest
threat to American national security.
Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in
November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom
remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the
still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)
That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating,
perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become,
arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history.
The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified
news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by
systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.
(For inventories of recent examples, see
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should
visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist
Robert Parry.)
Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications
once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and
"proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.
As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable
television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are
examples of Russia-gate without Russia.
Flynn and the FBI
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution
and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI
about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming
Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to
sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving
office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of
Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified
cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult
Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is
commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which
Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or
which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a
personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)
But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump
representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were
anything but a crime. As I pointed out in
another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of
presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow
not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the
relationship.
When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to
keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming
administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President
Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president
and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of
the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the
election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.
In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to
Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a
crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did
Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way,
it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries
from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.
Removing Tillerson
Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to
drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon,
anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable
appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and
practical-minded man.
Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely
profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the
slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that
he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department,
as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have
raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly
glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries,
and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the
State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?
The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its
nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten,
meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested
Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging
of a president by his own State Department.
In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be
ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him
to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling
for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if
left unencumbered, he might achieve.)
Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian
counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to
engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current
crisis.
Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting
America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a
détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become
hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always
involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who
represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump
himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to
gravely endanger American national security?
Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and
Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this
article first appeared.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm
"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to
transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone
effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding
with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been
exposed in such glaring fashion.
"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches
"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the
Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to
disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation
during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal
settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long
relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]
"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion
"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy
explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the
Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with
Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]
""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump
administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of
bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort
to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily
Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For
Israel.'
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.
"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset
narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy
infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign
failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an
unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."
Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this
one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream
source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally
(generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.
One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his
show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of
his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it,
etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to
voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm
I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of
truth–oh my god
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm
On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.
Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply
partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Yeah Drew-
For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones.
Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to
loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I
never would have imagined.
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm
Isn't it something Mr. Scott?
Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity
and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the
things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a
more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does
nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump,
and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and
indeed it was a very good one.
RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several
times.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right
on.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of
an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more
blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of
her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news
outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda
parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news
commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the
propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or
monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or
monkeys.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more
complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union
where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but
go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli
Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their
party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I
can't see myself doing that.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am
I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a
point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative
along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've
helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least
some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a
National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries'
about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to
sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me
furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.
alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm
"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger
American national security?"
The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for
money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do.
They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to
do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor
suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can
prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out
of control.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm
This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on
Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for
this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact,
the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its
legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people
have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in
its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two
party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in
light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious
system.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise
one. Weekly listener.
Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a
few caveats.
Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the
level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you
imagine.
When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary
from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising
awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that
this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain
view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst
themselves.
The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as
Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever
they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:
Hobbling Trump, for a number of reasons, not least of which amounts to his unwillingness
to pretend he cares about 'spreading Democracy' around the world. More immediate goal.
Trying to put a lid on a rapidly boiling over domestic discontent with the status quo.
Meaning corporate control over the government, pro-corporate, anti-democratic policy, and
endless senseless war.
The remainder of this piece refers to #2.
Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's
self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and
methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and
deception.
We are told they 'sow chaos'. Code for platforming anti-establishment truth-tellers.
We are told they cause us to 'lose trust in our system of government'. Code for them platforming people who help expose, like Bernie Sanders does, how 'our system of government'
has been taken from us by corporations, and making us want it back, for the people.
We are told that Russia is, in however many words, whatever we, ourselves are.
Imperialistic, disregarding of truth and reality, arrogant, entitled, expansionist etc. The
American people are waking up to what the Empire does, and why. The rather desperate idea is
to redirect that knowledge and stick it to Russia. Externalizing an internal threat.
Finally, we are told that Russia is criticizing and grand-standing against the West in
order to tamp down domestic discontent. Which, given the previous entry here, is showing to
be exactly what the US government is doing. To the letter.
Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake
democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think
those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think
they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of
Oligarchic corporate power.
Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or
whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on
our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus
controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to
do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to
anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live
under.
In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate
attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational
truth.
Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.
Kind regards,
Bill
Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm
Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial
hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These
weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the
treacherous criminals they are.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am
Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s
parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.
Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication
is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are
exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful
that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.
And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people
are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts
than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are
showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I
am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)
Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and
told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee
shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people
are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about
Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would
not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Jessica,
That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're
right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a
longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.
Best wishes,
Bill
RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm
It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World
standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.
The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points,
not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of
Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the
snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long
game that they are in for.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the
prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I
wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is
complicit.
Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an
interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why
it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.
Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm
My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid
conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the
river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one
of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate
instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the
readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans
not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there
some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our
rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those
few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting
most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological
conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to
originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for
Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step
madness.
Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm
We remember an era before 11/22/1963
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for
this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian
interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No,
instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate
idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have
been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump
backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought.
I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments
here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of
coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey,
and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and
then be done with it.
Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who
have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know
that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable
input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin
apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.
As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been
deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the
way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.
Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The
ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a
nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more
than half a century ago.
NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four
decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World
under neoliberal global economy.
The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category,
and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10%
class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education;
Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon
Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K.,
Australia Canada . . .
The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables –
especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage
here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the
Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people
that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump.
With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side
voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined
and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class
people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to
the bottom for those people.
Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of
them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source.
They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't
even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of
them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during
events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate
commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.
As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job.
Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia –
a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.
Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am
Dave P-
Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural
area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying
to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker
Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte
sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC
empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at
windmills.
Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm
I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a
young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth
would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be
one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual
outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in
which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually
suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political
rights.
It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the
Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about
the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of
the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the
price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT
catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the
Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats"
whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those
people would be on her side!)
Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any
other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we
worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone
Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it.
Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony
Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.
Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to
be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off
from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in
1972.
Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with
just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School.
You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those
days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the
least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle
class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small
and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked
optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.
And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that
optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again
this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived
for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this
NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.
Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society
America has become.
One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely
goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool
teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this
Animal Kingdom story (yet):
Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers
"They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are
not a camel!".
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm
"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused
of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced
two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of
them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have
agreed to testify [ ]
"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist
Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again
brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and
speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more
explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.
"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos
and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People
were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially
the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and
their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion.
In other words, it was about money and the making of money.
"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings
during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the
massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests,
leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working
on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover
for a coup.
"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had
become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded
telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign
Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that
"someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders.
In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the
massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that
gained wide attention.
'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the
Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false
flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were
involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]
"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV
Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and
with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev
from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to
testify in Kiev."
The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the
massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych
allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for
this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and
politicians.
Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the
evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by
pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of
far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:
– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings
that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from
those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the
Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and
those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used
by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different
TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not
made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence
collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence,
including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the
killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new
government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has
disappeared from house arrest.
Thank you Abe that article could change everything
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm
Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or
two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to
determine where shots originated.
Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work
without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with
the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of
charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the
test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane
shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.
They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These
are madmen.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am
It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly
uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17
comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while
everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm
That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's
sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act
– passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through
until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US
corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once
'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to
extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to
install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free
US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with
anti-Putin political groups.
I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't
believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to
laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm
I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him
from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main
motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't
believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who
have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes
wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is
being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy
dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power.
Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are
actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her,
politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the
Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would
not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement
to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not
straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One
of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this
behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political
donations . . .
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am
What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office'
campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world
we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein
kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud
mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how
all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's
even cheaper than impeachment.
So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality,
and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody
carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am
Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the
conversation should be.
Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be
taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am
Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.
Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply
enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.
Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm
So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering,
tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the
Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because
the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you
guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those
members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in
a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you
should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm
This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for
their journalistic standards, "
God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of
professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.
"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing
Instability
I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he
hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room
when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I
was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all
claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole
thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape
in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year?
Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually
abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening
now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual
harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am
So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the
Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely
bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.
"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have
Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the
Russia-gate farce.
Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am
I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at
least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.
One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the
craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but
Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and
writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really
cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump,
"resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a
Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen
right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I
will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him
somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in
the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear
to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to
decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him
and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation.
I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their
own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.
Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed
into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually
could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I
have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and
money.
Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed.
People like him are precious resources for America and the world.
PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and
Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their
hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.
Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm
What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the
"Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the
first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the
perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome
voice indeed.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am
The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the
Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central
"collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the
disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.
The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead
of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted
"Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!
Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team
Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and
striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout
and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal
and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with
counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the
approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.
By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation
with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a
detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a
falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid
interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.
I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments!
David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm
Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the
utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.
And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a
"Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a
plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".
I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense.
Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their
hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and
debatable "facts"*.
dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am
An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.
Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said.
including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or
something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.
Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for
it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a
spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).
Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with
neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering,
the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills
minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit
prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education;
show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking,
not Vladimir Putin)
The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but
mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major
political parties is capable of that at this time.
A new coalition is called for.
James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing
trend.
Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.
The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as
possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.
rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm
Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of
the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time
he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats
and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just
encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one
aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.
Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary
are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?
"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized
war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.
Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump",
by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including
Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be
pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.
Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am
Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's
baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage.
Let's hope against all hope.
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. ..."
"... Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." ..."
"... A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones." ..."
"... According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied." ..."
"... "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.] ..."
"... Do you still trust Windows Update? ..."
"... As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. ..."
"... "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here . ..."
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive. ..."
"... Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. ..."
"... By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified. ..."
"... I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail. ..."
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... 4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices. ..."
"... So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events." ..."
"... My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table. ..."
"... To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out? ..."
"... Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them ..."
"... The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options. ..."
"... "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me. ..."
"... It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours. ..."
"... "These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened." ..."
Yves here. The first
release of the Wikileaks Vault 7 trove has curiously gone from being a MSM lead story yesterday to a handwave today. On the one hand,
anyone who was half awake during the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the NSA is in full spectrum surveillance and data storage
mode, and members of the Five Eyes back-scratch each other to evade pesky domestic curbs on snooping. So the idea that the CIA (and
presumably the NSA) found a way to circumvent encryption tools on smartphones, or are trying to figure out how to control cars remotely,
should hardly come as a surprise.
However, at a minimum, reminding the generally complacent public that they are being spied on any time they use the Web, and increasingly
the times in between, makes the officialdom Not Happy.
And if this Wikileaks claim is even halfway true, its Vault 7 publication is a big deal:
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero
day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more
than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to
have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided
WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
This is an indictment of the model of having the intelligence services rely heavily on outside contractors. It is far more difficult
to control information when you have multiple organizations involved. In addition, neolibearlism posits that workers are free agents
who have no loyalties save to their own bottom lines (or for oddballs, their own sense of ethics). Let us not forget that
Snowden planned his career job moves
, which included a stint at NSA contractor Dell, before executing his information haul at a Booz Allen site that he had targeted.
Admittedly, there are no doubt many individuals who are very dedicated to the agencies for which they work and aspire to spend
most it not all of their working lives there. But I would assume that they are a minority.
The reason outsiders can attempt to pooh-pooh the Wikileaks release is that the organization redacted sensitive information like
the names of targets and attack machines. The CIA staffers who have access to the full versions of these documents as well as other
major components in the hacking toolkit will be the ones who can judge how large and serious the breach really is. 1 And
their incentives are to minimize it no matter what.
By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living
on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow
him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
CIA org chart from the WikiLeaks cache (click to enlarge). "The organizational chart corresponds to the material published
by WikiLeaks so far. Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement
of the EDG [Engineering Development Group] and its branches is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released
so far. It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org
chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently."
* * *
"O brave new world, that has such people in it."
Bottom line first. As you read what's below, consider:
That the CIA is capable of doing all of the things described, and has been for years, is not in doubt.
That unnameable many others have stolen ("exfiltrated") these tools and capabilities is, according to the Wikileaks leaker, also
certain. Consider this an especially dangerous form of proliferation, with cyber warfare tools in the hands of anyone with money
and intent. As WikiLeaks notes, "Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used
by peer states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike."
That the CIA is itself using these tools, and if so, to what degree, are the only unknowns. But can anyone doubt, in this aggressively
militarized environment, that only the degree of use is in question?
Now the story.
WikiLeaks just dropped a huge cache of documents (the first of several promised releases), leaked from a person or people
associated with the CIA in one or more capacities (examples, employee, contractor), which shows an agency out-of-control in its spying
and hacking overreach. Read through to the end. If you're like me, you'll be stunned, not just about what they can do, but that they
would want to do it, in some cases in direct violation of President Obama's orders. This story is bigger than anything you can imagine.
Consider this piece just an introduction, to make sure the story stays on your radar as it unfolds - and to help you identify
those media figures who will try to minimize or bury it. (Unless I missed it, on MSNBC last night, for example, the first mention
of this story was not Chris Hayes, not Maddow, but the Lawrence O'Donnell show, and then only to support his guest's "Russia gave
us Trump" narrative. If anything, this leak suggests a much muddier picture, which I'll explore in a later piece.)
So I'll start with just a taste, a few of its many revelations, to give you, without too much time spent, the scope of the problem.
Then I'll add some longer bullet-point detail, to indicate just how much of American life this revelation touches.
While the cache of documents has been vetted and redacted
, it hasn't been fully explored for implications. I'll follow this story as bits and piece are added from the crowd sourced research
done on the cache of information. If you wish to play along at home, the WikiLeaks
torrent file is here . The torrent's
passphrase is here . WikiLeaks
press release is here (also reproduced below). Their FAQ
is here .
Note that this release covers the years 2013–2016. As WikiLeaks says in its FAQ, "The series is the largest intelligence publication
in history."
Preface - Trump and Our "Brave New World"
But first, this preface, consisting of one idea only. Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies,
agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny
writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons,
the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." Plus Vladimir Putin, whose relationship
with Trump is just "business," an alliance of convenience, if you will.
I have zero sympathy for Donald Trump. But his world is now our world, and with both of his feet firmly planted in spook world,
ours are too. He's in it to his neck, in fact, and what happens in that world will affect every one of us. He's so impossibly erratic,
so impossibly unfit for his office, that everyone on the list above wants to remove him. Many of them are allied, but if they are,
it's also only for convenience.
How do spooks remove the inconvenient and unfit? I leave that to your imagination;they have their ways. Whatever method they choose,
however, it must be one without fingerprints - or more accurately, without their fingerprints - on it.
Which suggests two more questions. One, who will help them do it, take him down? Clearly, anyone and everyone on the list. Second,
how do you bring down the president, using extra-electoral, extra-constitutional means, without bringing down the Republic? I have
no answer for that.
Here's a brief look at "spook world" (my phrase, not the author's) from "
The Fox Hunt " by John
Sevigny:
Several times in my life – as a journalist and rambling, independent photographer - I've ended up rubbing shoulders with
spooks. Long before that was a racist term, it was a catch-all to describe intelligence community people, counter intel types,
and everyone working for or against them. I don't have any special insight into the current situation with Donald Trump and his
battle with the IC as the intelligence community calls itself, but I can offer a few first hand observations about the labyrinth
of shadows, light, reflections, paranoia, perceptions and misperceptions through which he finds himself wandering, blindly. More
baffling and scary is the thought he may have no idea his ankles are already bound together in a cluster of quadruple gordian
knots, the likes of which very few people ever escape.
Criminal underworlds, of which the Trump administration is just one, are terrifying and confusing places. They become
far more complicated once they've been penetrated by authorities and faux-authorities who often represent competing interests,
but are nearly always in it for themselves.
One big complication - and I've written
about this before - is that you never know who's working for whom . Another problem is that the hierarchy of handlers,
informants, assets and sources is never defined. People who believe, for example, they are CIA assets are really just being used
by people who are perhaps not in the CIA at all but depend on controlling the dupe in question. It is very simple - and I have
seen this happen - for the subject of an international investigation to claim that he is part of that operation. [emphasis added]
Which leads Sevigny to this observation about Trump, which I partially quoted above: "Donald Trump may be crazy, stupid, evil
or all three but he knows the knives are being sharpened and there are now too many blades for him to count. The intel people are
against him, as are the counter intel people. His phone conversations were almost certainly recorded by one organization or another,
legal or quasi legal. His enemies include Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU,
every living Democrat and even Rand Paul. Putin is not on his side - that's a business matter and not an alliance."
Again, this is not to defend Trump, or even to generate sympathy for him - I personally have none. It's to characterize where
he is, and we are, at in this pivotal moment. Pivotal not for what they're doing, the broad intelligence community. But pivotal for
what we're finding out, the extent and blatancy of the violations.
All of this creates an incredibly complex story, with only a tenth or less being covered by anything like the mainstream press.
For example, the Trump-Putin tale is much more likely to be part of a much broader "international mobster" story, whose participants
include not only Trump and Putin, but Wall Street (think HSBC) and major international banks, sovereign wealth funds, major hedge
funds, venture capital (vulture capital) firms, international drug and other trafficking cartels, corrupt dictators and presidents
around the world and much of the highest reaches of the "Davos crowd."
Much of the highest reaches of the .01 percent, in other words, all served, supported and "curated" by the various, often competing
elements of the first-world military and intelligence communities. What a stew of competing and aligned interests, of marriages and
divorces of convenience, all for the common currencies of money and power, all of them
dealing in
death .
What this new WikiLeaks revelation shows us is what just one arm of that community, the CIA, has been up to. Again, the breadth
of the spying and hacking capability is beyond imagination. This is where we've come to as a nation.
What the CIA Is Up To - A Brief Sample
Now about those CIA spooks and their surprising capabilities. A number of
other outlets have written up the story, but
this
from Zero Hedge has managed to capture the essence as well as the breadth in not too many words (emphasis mine throughout):
WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release
of confidential documents on the CIA It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of 'Vault 7', a series of leaks on the agency,
which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center
For Cyber Intelligence in Langley , and which can be seen on the org
chart below, which Wikileaks also released : [org
chart reproduced above]
A total of 8,761 documents have been published
as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said
that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company
products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs
, which are turned into covert microphones."
WikiLeaks tweeted the leak, which it claims came from a network inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley,
Virginia.
Among the more notable disclosures which, if confirmed, "
would rock the technology world ", the CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services
such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate
Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied."
With respect to hacked devices like you smart phone, smart TV and computer, consider the concept of putting these devices in "fake-off"
mode:
Among the various techniques profiled by WikiLeaks is "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB),
which infests smart TVs , transforming them into covert microphones. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target
TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode , so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates
as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.
As Kim Dotcom chimed in on Twitter, "CIA turns Smart TVs, iPhones, gaming consoles and many other consumer gadgets into open
microphones" and added "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand,
including via Windows update "[.]
Do you still trust Windows Update?
About "Russia did it"
Adding to the "Russia did it" story, note this:
Another profound revelation is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant
. Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial
library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.["]
As Kim Dotcom summarizes this finding, " CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy
state ."
This doesn't prove that Russia didn't do it ("it" meaning actually hacking the presidency for Trump, as opposed to providing
much influence in that direction), but again, we're in spook world, with all the phrase implies. The CIA can clearly put anyone's
fingerprints on any weapon they wish, and I can't imagine they're alone in that capability.
Hacking Presidential Devices?
If I were a president, I'd be concerned about this, from the WikiLeaks "
Analysis " portion of the Press Release (emphasis added):
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments [that the intelligence community would
reveal to device manufacturers whatever vulnerabilities it discovered]. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal
are pervasive [across devices and device types] and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" [that it] is able to penetrate, infest and control both the
Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts . The CIA attacks this software by using
undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA[,] but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone
else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and
Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.
Does or did the CIA do this (hack presidential devices), or is it just capable of it? The second paragraph implies the latter.
That's a discussion for another day, but I can say now that both Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to Colin Powell and a non-partisan (though
an admitted Republican) expert in these matters, and
William Binney,
one of the triumvirate of major pre-Snowden leakers, think emphatically yes. (See
Wilkerson's
comments here . See
Binney's comments here .)
Whether or not you believe Wilkerson and Binney, do you doubt that if our intelligence people can do something, they would
balk at the deed itself, in this
world of "collect it all
"? If nothing else, imagine the power this kind of bugging would confer on those who do it.
The Breadth of the CIA Cyber-Hacking Scheme
But there is so much more in this Wikileaks release than suggested by the brief summary above. Here's a bullet-point overview
of what we've learned so far, again via Zero Hedge:
Key Highlights from the Vault 7 release so far:
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of
"zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products , include Apple's iPhone,
Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized
"zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation . This extraordinary collection, which
amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The
archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one
of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI),
had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other
"weaponized" malware . Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than
that used to run Facebook.
The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question
as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds , to be used by rival states, cyber
mafia and teenage hackers alike.
Also this scary possibility:
As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks.
The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations
.
Journalist Michael Hastings, who in 2010
destroyed the career of General
Stanley McChrystal and was hated by the military for it, was killed in 2013 in an inexplicably out-of-control car. This isn't
to suggest the CIA, specifically, caused his death. It's to ask that, if these capabilities existed in 2013, what would prevent their
use by elements of the military, which is, after all a death-delivery organization?
And lest you consider this last speculation just crazy talk, Richard Clarke (that
Richard Clarke ) agrees: "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism
chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush,
told the Huffington
Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating
article here .
WiliLeaks Press Release
Here's what WikiLeaks itself says about this first document cache (again, emphasis mine):
Press Release
Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault
7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero
day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more
than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to
have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided
WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of
"zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android
and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA
found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own
substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations
to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's
Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over
5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware.
Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The
CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether
such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public
, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency.
The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia
and teenage hackers alike.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'.
Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain
them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the
choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."
Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the
distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and
how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.
Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some
identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack
machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen,
we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero")
already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.
Be sure to click through for the Analysis, Examples and FAQ sections
as well.
"O brave new world," someone once wrote . Indeed.
Brave new world, that only the brave can live in.
____
1 Mind you, the leakers may have had a comprehensive enough view to be making an accurate call. But the real point
is there are no actors who will be allowed to make an independent assessment.
Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump
campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself.
The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump's relationship with Moscow. They were
drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published
the documents, which it said were "unverified and potentially unverifiable".
The Guardian has not been able to confirm the veracity of the documents' contents,
Emphases mine. I had been sitting on this link trying to make sense of this part. Clearly, the Trump Whitehouse has some major
leaks, which the MSM is exploiting. But the start of this article suggests that para-intelligence (is that a word? Eh, it is now)
was the source of the allegedly damaging info.
This is no longer about the deep-state, but a rouge state, possibly guns for higher, each having fealty to specific political
interests. The CIA arsenal wasn't leaked. It was delivered.
hmm.. as far as I can see, noone seems to care here in Germany anymore about being spied on by our US friends, apart from a
few alternative sources which are being accused of spreading fake news, of being anti-american, russian trolls, the matter is
widely ignored
I have read a few articles about the Vault 7 leak that typically raise a few alarms I would like to comment on.
1) The fact that the
CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services
does not mean that it has broken encryption, just that it has a way to install a program at a lower level, close to the operating
system, that will read messages before they are encrypted and sent by the messaging app, or just after they
have been decrypted by it.
As a side note: banks have now largely introduced two-factor authentication when accessing online services. One enters username
(or account number) and password; the bank site returns a code; the user must then enter this code into a smartphone app or a
tiny specialized device, which computes and returns a value out of it; the user enters this last value into the entry form as
a throw-away additional password, and gains access to the bank website.
I have always refused to use such methods on a smartphone and insist on getting the specialized "single-use password computer",
precisely because the smartphone platform can be subverted.
2) The fact that
"Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), [ ] infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert
microphones.
is possible largely because smart TVs are designed by their manufacturers to serve as spying devices. "Weeping Angel" is not
some kind of virus that turns normal devices into zombies, but a tool to take control of existing zombie devices.
The fact that smart TVs from
Vizio ,
Samsung or
LG constitute an outrageous intrusion into the privacy of their owners has been a known topic for years already.
3) The
CIA [ ] also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks
is not a "scary possibility" either; various demonstrations of such feats on
Tesla ,
Nissan , or
Chrysler vehicles have been demonstrated in the past few years.
And the consequences have already been suggested (killing people by disabling their car controls on the highway for instance).
My take on this is that we should seriously look askance not just at the shenanigans of the CIA, but at the entire "innovative
technology" that is imposed upon (computerized cars) or joyfully adopted by (smartphones) consumers. Of course, most NC readers
are aware of the pitfalls already, but alas not the majority of the population.
4) Finally this:
He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office,
Trump is arguably unfit for office, does not have a clue about many things (such as foreign relations), but by taxing him of
being "erratic" Gaius Publius shows that he still does not "get" the Donald.
Trump has a completely different modus operandi than career politicians, formed by his experience as a real-estate mogul and
media star. His world has been one where one makes outrageous offers to try anchoring the negotiation before reducing one's claims
- even significantly, or abruptly exiting just before an agreement to strike a deal with another party that has been lured to
concessions through negotiations with the first one. NC once included a video of Trump doing an interactive A/B testing of his
slogans during a campaign meeting; while changing one's slogans on the spot might seem "erratic", it is actually a very systematic
market probing technique.
So stop asserting that Trump is "unpredictable" or "irrational"; this is underestimating him (a dangerous fault), as he is
very consistent, though in an uncommon fashion amongst political pundits.
While I agree that it's worth pointing out that the CIA has not broken any of the major encryption tools, even Snowden regards
being able to circumvent them as worse, since people using encryption are presumably those who feel particularly at risk and will
get a false sense of security and say things or keep data on their devices that they never never would if they thought they were
insecure.
Re Gaius on Trump, I agree the lady doth protest too much. But I said repeatedly that Trump would not want to be President
if he understood the job. It is not like being the CEO of a private company. Trump has vastly more control over his smaller terrain
in his past life than he does as President.
And Trump is no longer campaigning. No more a/b testing.
The fact is that he still does not have effective control of the Executive branch. He has lots of open positions in the political
appointee slots (largely due to not having even submitted candidates!) plus has rebellion in some organizations (like folks in
the EPA storing data outside the agency to prevent its destruction).
You cannot pretend that Trump's former MO is working at all well for him. And he isn't showing an ability to adapt or learn
(not surprising at his age). For instance, he should have figured out by now that DC is run by lawyers, yet his team has hardly
any on it. This is continuing to be a source of major self inflicted wounds.
His erraticness may be keeping his opponents off base, but it is also keeping him from advancing any of his goals.
Yes, not breaking encryption is devious, as it gives a false sense of security - this is precisely why I refuse to use those
supposedly secure e-banking login apps on smartphones whose system software can be subverted, and prefer those non-connected,
non-reprogrammable, special-purpose password generating devices.
As for Trump being incompetent for his job, and his skills in wheeling-dealing do not carrying over usefully to conducting
high political offices, that much is clear. But he is not "erratic", rather he is out of place and out of his depth.
I am writing this in the shower with a paper bag over my head and my iPhone in the microwave.
I have for years had a password-protected document on computer with all my important numbers and passwords. I have today deleted
that document and reverted to a paper record.
I think he means a machine dedicated to high-security operations like anything financial or bill-pay. Something that is not
exposed to email or web-browsing operations that happen on a casual-use computer that can easily compromise. That's not a bad
way to go; it's cheaper in terms of time than the labor-intensive approaches I use, but those are a hobby more than anything else.
It depends on how much you have at stake if they get your bank account or brokerage service password.
I take a few basic security measures, which would not impress the IT crowd I hang out with elsewhere, but at least would not
make me a laughingstock. I run Linux and use only open-source software; run ad-blockers and script blockers; confine risky operations,
which means any non-corporate or non-mainstream website to a virtual machine that is reset after each use; use separate browsers
with different cookie storage policies and different accounts for different purposes. I keep a well-maintained pfSense router
with a proxy server and an intrusion detection system, allowing me to segregate my secure network, home servers, guest networks,
audiovisual streaming and entertainment devices, and IoT devices each on their own VLANs with appropriate ACLs between them. No
device on the more-secured network is allowed out to any port without permission, and similar rules are there for the IoT devices,
and the VoIP tools.
The hardware to do all of that costs at least $700, but the real expense is in the time to learn the systems properly. Of course
if you use Linux, you could save that on software in a year if you are too cheap to send a contribution to the developers.
It's not perfect, because I still have computers turned on :) , but I feel a bit safer this way.
That said, absolutely nothing that I have here would last 30 milliseconds against anything the "hats" could use, if they wanted
in. It would be over before it began. If I had anything to hide, really, I would have something to fear; so guess I'm OK.
They're key fobs handed to you by your IT dept. The code displayed changes every couple of minutes. The plus is there's nothing
sent over the air. The minus is the fobs are subject to theft, and are only good for connecting to 'home'. And since they have
a cost, and need to be physically handed to you, they're not good fit for most two factor login applications (ie logging into
your bank account).
I watched (fast forwarded through, really) Morning Joe yesterday to see what they would have to say about Wikileaks. The show
mostly revolved around the health care bill and Trump's lying and tweeting about Obama wiretapping him. They gave Tim Kaine plenty
of time to discuss his recent trip to London talking to "some of our allies there" saying that they are concerned that "all the
intelligence agencies" say the Rooskies "cyber hacked" our election, and since it looks like we aren't doing anything when we
are attacked, they KNOW we won't do anything when they are attacked. (more red baiting)
The only two mentions I saw was about Wikileaks were, first, a question asked of David Cohen, ex Deputy Director of the CIA,
who refused to confirm the Wikileaks were authentic, saying whatever tools and techniques the CIA had were used against foreign
persons overseas, so there is no reason to worry that your TV is looking at you. And second, Senator Tom Cotton, who didn't want
to comment on the contents of Wikileaks, only saying that the CIA is a foreign intelligence service, collecting evidence on foreign
targets to keep our country safe, and it does not do intelligence work domestically.
So that appears to be their story, the CIA doesn't spy on us, and they are sticking with it, probably hoping the whole Wikileaks
thing just cycles out of the news.
The unwillingness of the main stream media (so far) to really cover the Wikileaks reveal is perhaps the bigger story. This
should be ongoing front page stuff .. but it is not.
As for using ZeroHedge as a source for anything, can we give that a rest. That site has become a cesspool of insanity. It used
to have some good stuff. Now it is just unreadable. SAD
And yes I know the hypocrisy of slamming ZH and the MSM at the same time we live in interesting times.
Your remarks on ZH are an ad hominem attack and therefore a violation of site policies. The onus is on you to say what ZH got
wrong and not engage in an ungrounded smear. The mainstream media often cites ZH.
NC more than just about any other finance site is loath to link to ZH precisely because it is off base or hyperventilating
a not acceptably high percent of the time, and is generally wrong about the Fed (as in governance and how money works). We don't
want to encourage readers to see it as reliable. However, it is good on trader gossip and mining Bloomberg data.
And I read through its summary of the Wikileaks material as used by Gaius and there was nothing wrong with it. It was careful
about attributing certain claims to Wikileaks as opposed to depicting them as true.
My rules for reading ZH:
1- Skip every article with no picture
2- Skip every article where the picture is a graph
3- Skip every article where the picture is of a single person's face
4- Skip every afticle where the picture is a cartoon
5- Skip every article about gold, BitCoin, or high-frequency trading
6- Skip all the "Guest Posts"
7- ALWAYS click through to the source
8- NEVER read the comments
It is in my opinion a very high noise-to-signal source, but there is some there there.
Discerning a 'news from noise' is NEVER that easy b/c it is an art, developed by years of shifting through ever increasing
'DATA information' load. This again has to be filtered and tested against one's own 'critical' thinking or reasoning! You have
to give ZH, deserved credit, when they are right!
There is no longer a Black or white there, even at ZH! But it is one of the few, willing to challenge the main stream narrative
'kool aid'
In addition to the "para-intelligence" community (hat tip Code named D) there are multiple enterprises with unique areas of
expertise that interface closely with the CIA The long-exposed operations, which include entrapment and blackmailing of key actors
to guarantee complicity, "loyalty" and/or sealed lips, infect businesses, NGOs, law enforcement agencies, judges, politicians,
and other government agencies. Equal opportunity employment for those with strong stomachs and a weak moral compass.
Yes I can't remember where I read it but it was a tale passed around supposedly by an FBI guy that had, along with his colleagues,
the job of vetting candidates for political office. They'd do their background research and pass on either a thick or thin folder
full of all the compromising dirt on each potential appointee. Over time he said he was perturbed to notice a persistent pattern
where the thickest folders were always the ones who got in.
I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being
imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?"
and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they
have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that
you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics,
on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always
blackmail.
I find the notion that my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones somewhat irritating, but my imagination quickly runs
off to far worse scenarios. (although the popular phase, "You're tax dollars at work." keeps running thru my head like a earworm.
And whenever I hear "conservatives" speak of their desire for "small government", usually when topics of health care, Medicare
and social security come up, I can only manage a snort of incredulousness anymore)
One being malware penetrating our nuke power plants and shutting down the cooling system. Then the reactor slowly overheats
over the next 3 days, goes critical, and blows the surrounding area to high heaven. We have plants all around the coast of the
country and also around the Great Lakes Region – our largest fresh water store in a drought threatened future.
Then the same happening in our offensive nuke missile systems.
Some other inconvenient truths – the stuxnet virus has been redesigned. Kaspersky – premier anti malware software maker – had
a variant on their corporate network for months before finally discovering it. What chance have we?
In China, hacking is becoming a consumer service industry. There are companies building high power data centers with a host
of hacking tools. Anyone, including high school script kiddies, can rent time to use the sophisticated hacking tools, web search
bots, and whatever, all hosted on powerful servers with high speed internet bandwidth.
Being a bit "spooked" by all this, I began to worry about my humble home computer and decided to research whatever products
I could get to at least ward off annoying vandalism. Among other things, I did sign up for a VPN service. I'm looking at the control
app for my VPN connection here and I see that with a simple checkbox mouse click I can make my IP address appear to be located
in my choice of 40 some countries around the world. Romania is on the list!
Actually, I very much doubt that does work. The mic "pickup" would feed its analog output to a DAC (digital to analog converter)
which would convert the signal to digital. This then goes to something similar to a virtual com port in the operating system.
Here is where a malware program would pick it up and either create a audio file to be sent to an internet address, or stream it
directly there.
The article is just plugging in a microphone at the output jack. The malware got the data long before it goes thru another
DAC and analog amp to get to the speakers or output jack.
It depends on how it is hooked up internally. Old fashioned amateur radio headphones would disable the speakers when plugged
in because the physical insertion of the plug pushed open the connection to the speakers. The jack that you plug the ear buds
into might do the same, disconnecting the path between the built-in microphone and the ADC (actually it is an ADC not a DAC).
The only way to know is to take it apart and see how it is connected.
The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US is also the panacea for the public. And some are buying it. Along with everyone
knows they can do this is fueling the NOTHING to see here keep walking weak practically non existent coverage.
At what point do people quit negotiating in terrorism and errorism? For this is what the police, the very State itself has
long been. Far beyond being illegitimate, illegal, immoral, this is a clear and ever present danger to not just it's own people,
but the rule of law itself. Blanket statements like we all know this just makes the dangerously absurd normal I'll never understand
that part of human nature. But hey, the TSA literally just keeps probing further each and every year. Bend over!
Trump may not be the one for the task but we the people desperately need people 'unfit', for it is the many fit who brought
us to this point. His unfit nature is as refreshing on these matters in its chaotic honest disbelief as Snowden and Wiki revelations.
Refreshing because it's all we've got. One doesn't have to like Trump to still see missed opportunity so many should be telling
him he could be the greatest pres ever if (for two examples) he fought tirelessly for single payer and to bring down this police
state rather than the EPA or public education.
This cannot stand on so many levels. Not only is the fourth amendment rendered utterly void, but even if it weren't it falls
far short of the protections we deserve.
No enemy could possibly be as bad as who we are and what we allow/do among ourselves. If an election can be hacked (not saying
it was by Russia).. as these and other files prove anything can and will be hacked then our system is to blame, not someone else.
What amazes me is that the spooks haven't manufactured proof needed to take Trump out of office Bonfire of The Vanities style.
I'd like to think the people have moved beyond the point they would believe manufactured evidence but the Russia thing proves
otherwise.
These people foment world war while probing our every move and we do nothing!
If we wait for someone fit nothing will ever change because we wait for the police/media/oligarch state to tell us who is fit.
But being fit by the standards of our ruling class, the "real owners" as Carlin called them is, in my book, an automatic proof
that they are up to no good. Trump is not my cup of tea as a president but no one we have had in a while wasn't clearly compromised
by those who fund them. Did you ever wonder why we have never had a president or even a powerful member of congress that was not
totally in the tank for that little country on the Eastern Mediterranean? Or the Gulf Monarchies? Do you think that is by accident?
Do you think money isn't involved? Talk about hacked elections! We should be so lucky as to have ONLY Russians attempting to affect
our elections. Money is what hacks US elections and never forget that. To me it is laughable to discuss hacking the elections
without discussing the real way our "democracy" is subverted–money not document leaks or voting machine hacks. It's money.
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on Trump's list? Iran that has never been involved in a terrorist act on US soil is but not Saudi Arabia?
How many 911 hijackers came from Iran? If anything saves Trump from destruction by the real owners of our democracy it is his
devotion to the aforementioned countries.
The point again is not to remove him from office but to control him. With Trump's past you better believe the surveillance
state has more than enough to remove him from office. Notice the change in his rhetoric since inauguration? More and more he is
towing the establishment Republican line. Of course this depends on whether you believe Trump is a break with the past or just
the best liar out there. A very unpopular establishment would be clever in promoting their agent by pretending to be against him.
Anyone who still believes that the US is a democratic republic and not a mafia state needs to stick their heads deeper into
the sands. When will the low information voters and police forces on whom a real revolution depends realize this is anyone's guess.
The day is getting closer especially for the younger generation. The meme among the masses is that government has always been
corrupt and that this is nothing new. I do believe the level of immorality among the credentialed classes is indeed very new and
has become the new normal. Generations of every man for himself capitalist philosophy undermining any sense of morality or community
has finally done its work.
Go take a jaunt over to huffpo, at the time of this post there was not a single mention of vault 7 on the front page. Just
a long series of anti trump administration articles.
Glad to know for sure who the true warmongers were all along.
No.. The Church commission was a sweep it under the rug operation. It got us FISA courts. More carte blanche secrecy, not less.
The commission nor the rest of the system didn't even hold violators of the time accountable.
We have files like Vault 7. Commissions rarely get in secret what we have right here before our eyes.
River: Interesting historic parallel? I believe that the Ottomans got rid of the Janissaries that way, after the Janissaries
had become a state within a state, by using cannons on their HQ
From Wiki entry, Janissaries:
The corps was abolished by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 in the Auspicious Incident in which 6,000 or more were executed.[8]
Took less than a minute to download the 513.33MB file. The passphrase is what JFK said he'd like to do to CIA: SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds.
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger, 1975.
The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates.
A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized
by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something
that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and
the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.
The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would
be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed,
Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward
Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.
And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.
We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This
is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with
subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.
What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus,
one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.
This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.
Yeah I downloaded it the day it came out and spent an hour or so looking at it last night. First impressions – "heyyy this
is like a Hackers Guide – the sort I used in the 80s, or DerEngel's Cable Modem Hacking" of the 00s.
2nd impressions – wow it really gives foundational stuff – like "Enable Debug on PolarSSL".
3rd impressions – "I could spend hours going thru this happily ".
4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just
a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original
firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK.
Its quite fascinating. But trying to find the "juicy stuff" is going to be tedious. One can spend hours and hours going thru
it. To speed up going thru it, I'm going to need some tech sites to say "where to go".
It seems clear that Wikileaks has not and will not release actual ongoing method "how-to" info or hacking scripts. They are
releasing the "whats", not the tech level detailed "hows". This seems like a sane approach to releasing the data. The release
appears to be for political discussion, not for spreading the hacking tools. So I wouldn't look for "juicy bits" about detailed
methodology. Just my guess.
That said, love what you're doing digging into this stuff. I look forward to a more detailed report in future. Thanks.
Yves, I think that you much underestimate the extremity of these exposed violations of the security of freedom of expression,
and of the security of private records. The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device
microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your
private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows
10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices.
This goes far beyond the kind of snooping that required specialized devices installed near the target, which could be controlled
by warrant process. There is no control over this extreme spying. It is totalitarianism now.
This is probably the most extreme violation of the rights of citizens by a government in all of history. It is far worse than
the "turnkey tyranny" against which Snowden warned, on the interception of private messages. It is tyranny itself, the death of
democracy.
Your first sentence is a bit difficult to understand. If you read Yves' remarks introducing the post, she says that the revelations
are "a big deal" "if the Wikileaks claim is even halfway true," while coming down hard on the MSM and others for "pooh-pooh[ing]"
the story. Did you want her to add more exclamation points?
So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military
refers to as "being overtaken by events."
It's easy to gather information; not so easy to analyze it, and somehow impossible to act on it in good faith. With all this
ability to know stuff and surveil people the big question is, Why does everything seem so beyond our ability to control it?
We should know well in advance that banks will fail catastrophically; that we will indeed have sea level rise; that resources
will run out; that water will be undrinkable; that people will be impossible to manipulate when panic hits – but what do we do?
We play dirty tricks, spy on each other like voyeurs, and ignore the inevitable. Like the Stasi, we clearly know what happened,
what is happening and what is going to happen. But we have no control.
My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects
there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is
aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table.
AS, I would interpret it as saying that there was so much coming in it was like trying to classify snowflakes in a snowstorm.
They could pick a few subject areas to look at closely but the rest just went into the files.
Leaking like a sieve is also likely, but perhaps not the main point.
The archive appears to have been circulated among government hackers and contractors in a authorized manner
There, that looks the more likely framing considering CIA & DNI on behalf of the whole US IC seemingly fostered wide dissimilation
of these tools, information. Demonstration of media control an added plus.
Todd Pierce , on the other hand, nails it. (From his Facebook page.)
The East German Stasi could only dream of the sort of surveillance the NSA and CIA do now, with just as nefarious of purposes.
Perhaps the scare quotes around "international mobster" aren't really necessary.
In all this talk about the various factions aligned with and against Trump, that's one I haven't heard brought up by anybody.
With all the cement poured in Trump's name over the years, it would be naive to think his businesses had not brushed up against
organized crime at some point. Question is, whose side are they on?
Like all the other players, the "side" they are on is them-effing-selves. And isn't that the whole problem with our misbegotten
species, writ large?
Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Hzds9aGdA
Maybe these people will be around and still eating after us urban insects and rodents are long gone? Or will our rulers decide
no one should survive if they don't?
To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats
worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out?
I've long thought that the reason Snowden was pursued so passionately was that he exposed the biggest, most embarrassing secret:
that the National "Security" Agency's INTERNAL security was crap.
And here it is: "Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal "
The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release.
We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation,
it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it,
was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the
past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't
kill him or his family. That being one of their options.
Ah, that's the beauty of contracting it out. No one gets fired. Did anyone get fired because of Snowden? It was officially
a contractor problem and since there are only a small number of contractors capable of doing the work, well you know. We can't
get new ones.
What I find by far the most distressing is this: "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability
." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is
intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Republic is lost because we didn't stand guard for it. Blaming others don't cut
it either – we let it happen. And like the Germans about the Nazi atrocities, we will say that we didn't know about it.
Hey, I didn't let it happen. Stuff that spooks and sh!tes do behind the Lycra ™ curtain happens because it is, what is the
big word again, "ineluctable." Is my neighbor to blame for having his house half eaten by both kinds of termites, where the construction
is such that the infestation and damage are invisible until the vast damage is done?
And just how were we supposed to stand guard against a secret and unaccountable organization that protected itself with a shield
of lies? And every time some poor misfit complained about it they were told that they just didn't know the facts. If they only
knew what our IC knows they would not complain.
It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place
the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be
yours.
Studiously avoid any military celebrations. Worship of the military is part of the problem. Remember, the people you thank
for "their service" are as much victims as you are. Sadly they don't realize that their service is to a rotten empire that is
not worthy of their sacrifice but every time we perform the obligatory ritual of thankfulness we participate in the lie that the
service is to a democratic country instead of an undemocratic empire.
It's clearly a case of Wilfred Owen's classic "Dulce et Decorum Est". Read the poem, google it and read it. It is instructive:
" you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria
mori." Make no mistake. It is a lie and it can only be undone if we all cease to tell it.
"These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward
Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from
virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears
to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's
box has been opened."
LOL Oh, yes- same here. My late father loved Peter Sellers and to my mother's annoyance
would sometimes do Strangelove impersonations w jerking arm. His WWII convoy officer veteran
half German (and fully German fluent) father also thought the film was funny as hell and few
German Americans hated the Nazis as much as my grandfather did.
I saw the film for the very first time as a US Marine PFC stationed in Okinawa Autumn 1981
during of all things, a big typhoon which kept us confined to some scattered barracks up at
then remote- and beautiful- Camp Schwab. Two bored captains touring my deserted barracks I
stood duty in noticed in one cubicle a Beta video player and copy of the film and- kid you
not- when I confessed I had never seen the film, ordered me to watch it with them and I was
hooked. The two officers laughed hysterically like naughty little school boys on the bunk
they sat on as I pulled up a wooden footlocker. Utterly brilliant and imo has aged well- a
masterpiece.
'I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.' - Sellers' creepy chuckle
in response to Sterling Hayden's deranged rant alone still has me howling.
I grew up during the "hottest" part of the Cold War with my family living literally next
to a Nike nuclear SAM site(w armed sentries and scary dogs inside the barbed wire) in San
Pedro, CA. - we never lost any sleep over it even tho my '50s conscript Army vet dad quipped
we were a high priority target in any war w the Soviets.
"... Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it. ..."
"... One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way. ..."
I heard earlier today on the radio Carter is Obama's nom- I laughed as I called it here last week- Obama's Deep State masters'
top pick as a very smooth below radar Trojan Horse neo con who will fly through confirmation and has doubtless has big plans.
The GOP and the MIC will love him, new wars will be cooked up for Americans to die in and I'm sure he has less than democratic
views on Americans who will protest their govt for this. The Soviets' crushing of the 1968 Prague Spring makes for a nice blueprint
on how to silence dissent if the anti Occupy tactics don't work and a dialed down version of martial law could be here to stay.
Ashton Carter was one of the most extreme of the neocon hawks in the upper levels of the Bush Admin.
His specific assignment was to ensure there could never be a "peer competitor" by throwing money at the bleeding cutting edge
of weapons technology.
Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought
that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it.
One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of
spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way.
However, now with Carter we see that the neocons have captured the policy part of the Obama Admin -- it wasn't an accident,
it was design that we did that, and now will go back into Iraq, attack Syria, and attack Iran.
What could go wrong with someone advocating bombing North Korea? Just the type of person the job requires. The only criteria for
the job was: must love war. So, while we are bombing Iraq, Syria, Yemen, occasionally Pakistan, we can figure out how much we
will pay contractors for armament to take care of Iran and North Korea as well. He will certainly fit into Obama's cabinet as
another yes man. Just like so many who have no military experience outside of watching war movies and video games, he is exactly
what Obama wants. Someone who agrees how easy it is to start wars. He probably won't face much opposition since Obama has become
an official member of the neocons now running the country. Anyone who would caution that the unending wars are taking the country
down the road that destroyed the Soviet Union need not apply. The US doesn't feel that domestic issues are a priority, why put
money into fixing the failing infrastructure when you can buy more drones. He'll do fine as long as he takes his orders from Nuland,
Psaki and Harf.
Another sociopath willing to do the biding of the sociopaths who run the USA.
The rich profit immensely from the department of war, as this article intimates. Every dead Muslim child means profits for
rich Americans.
I wonder if Mr. Carter will last as long as the late Sec. of Defense McNamara who served from early '61 to early 1968 when Pres.
Johnson moved him to the head of the UN World Bank. A former secretary was William Cohen, a Republican, who served under Clinton.
Leon Panetta and Robert Gates did well, but both wrote critical books about Obama after leaving. A complex job, dealing with the
White House and the four star hawks in the Pentagon. Oh, a few doves too.
Conway appeared on Jesse Watters program, Watters' World, to talk about the newly
revealed content of text messages sent between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
When asked what she thought they meant when they said "they need to protect America from
Trump and need to have an insurance policy against his presidency," Conway tore into the
investigation's credibility.
"The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary. We
understand that people have political views but they are expressing theirs with such animus and
such venom towards the now president of the United States they can't possibly be seen as
objective or transparent or even-handed or fair," she said.
As she spoke, the banner below Conway and Watters screamed "A COUP IN AMERICA?"
Watters proceeded to ask "how dangerous" Conway thought it was that people were "plotting
what appears to be some sort of subversion campaign" against Trump.
"It's toxic, it's lethal, and it may be fatal to the continuation of people arguing that
that matter is since behind us, he won he's the president, and the Mueller investigation is
something separate," she answered.
Conway then slammed critics for defending the integrity of the probe by alleging that Trump
is against the FBI, repeating the claim that he isn't under investigation, "we're told."
Released on Tuesday, Strzok and Page's messages referred to Trump as an "idiot" and "douche.
At one point, Strzok told Page he was considering "an insurance policy" if Trump were elected.
Page had also told Strzok that maybe he was meant to "protect the country from that menace,"
according to records reviewed by
Politico.
Watters assessed the texts as evidence of a coup, or sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of
power from the government, in America.
"The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the
scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency
for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if
that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America," he said.
Who is this "left" that "can't let go of the voters who remain committed to Trump_vs_deep_state"? Sounds
like something one might read in the New York Times (if one still read the New York
Times ).
Electoral "victories" don't mean a thing if they are not backed up with direct action --
the readiness and willingness to exercise extra-parliamentary power. The only decisive power
that "the left" could have is the withholding of labour power. As long as the
political discourse is confined to palaver about popularity polls, there can be no challenge
to a status quo that only progressively gets worse.
What people who want positive change need to realize is that a GENERAL STRIKE doesn't need
to be "won" like a voting contest to have leverage. All that is needed is a demonstration of
a credible threat to the uninterrupted accumulation of surplus value.
Why have "social democratic" governments been such shit for the last 40 years or so?
Because finance has threatened them with the withdrawal of credit. Withholding capital is the
substantive power of the political right; withholding labour power is the substantive power
of the political left. Voting is only meaningful to the extent it represents something
substantive. Otherwise it is a hollow symbol.
"My understanding is that there wasn't much change in voter turnout by group "
Voter turnout was dramatically different when you compare with the last year there was no
President on the ballot, e.g. 2014. Turnout in the cities was up 31%, turnout in white
suburbs was up 18%, and turnout in college towns up 24%. Turnout in white rural counties was
down 5%, while turnout in black rural counties was up 10%.
"On election day, the left needs to convince the right – not through voter suppression
or intimidation but through rhetoric and speech – that their movement is going nowhere,
so they shouldn't either."
Thing is, crabby old conservative white people are the most reliable voting bloc.
"That's exactly what happened in Alabama"
What happened in Alabama was a sustained, weeks-long campaign of negative publicity,
virtually 100% directed at Moore (who by the way was an extremely controversial character
long before these sex allegations), which was unprecedented in scope for a Senate race. Even
so he just barely lost. If you think you can replicate this hundreds of times over across the
country, hey, go for it.
More realistically, what the left needs to do is give the tens of millions of non-voters
something to vote FOR, rather than praying that all your opponents will be extremist theocrat
sex fiends.
Interesting. Moore's primary win was itself a rejection of GOP cronyism. The president and
the national party supported the candidate of the establishment. Moore's victory then was
touted as a 'defeat' for Trump, and now his 'defeat' is also a 'defeat' for Trump. The GOP
establishment rejected Trump and Moore, so if it was a victory for anybody I'd say they have
grounds for celebration. Moore added nothing for Trump other than headaches, so I'm certain
he's utterly indifferent to the success, or failure, of anyone but himself.
Yes, GOP voters stayed home, as you point out in the article, but offer scant evidence
that they did because they are 'dis-spirited' or see their ideas 'going nowhere.' GOP voters
are winning across the board with the tax cut of their dreams arriving in time to celebrate
Christmas. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, climate change is no longer a national threat,
and the better informed understand that the GOP is remaking the judiciary.
Congress has never been popular among GOP voters and it's probably a mistake to read too
much into one atypical election. I do think that there's a good chance that GOP success and
loathing of the president and the congress, combined, could depress turnout in 2018.
ph@6: GOP voters are winning across the board with the tax cut of their dreams arriving in
time to celebrate Christmas. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, climate change is no longer
a national threat, and the better informed understand that the GOP is remaking the
judiciary.
Omits the savaging of healthcare of the neediest*. It's amazing that the no. 1 issue for
Va voters (exit? poll) was healthcare, but reporters/analysts rather write about anything
else.
Rightwing fell a vote short of cutting Medicaid by $800B/10yrs, but they get an estimate of,
say, $300B/10yrs for tax cut numbers game by killing ACA's mandate, eh?
*Oh, yes, ask the White Christians' Party how they square it. . . Once again, it's a White
Christmas.
There was a big shift among non-evangelical white voters. Self-described evangelicals had
slightly lower turnout but voted 80 per cent for Moore when they turned out. The response to
the outcome certainly seems to have included a shift towards a much more negative treatment
of evangelicals as a group. Most notably, it's now being routinely observed that, for white
people, evangelicalism isn't Christian at all, but a cultural label attached to a mixture of
white nationalism and the prosperity gospel. This piece
in the NY Times hits most of the main points.
However, to go out of the question of political power for a moment, I don't see the
question about Trump voters as one of "how can we convert them." Rather, the question is
about the existential conditions in the U.S. that have not only produced this reactionary
class, but endowed it with such enormous power. Personally, I would say that their power
stems from the enormous failure of American liberalism to pursue, after the 60s, its promises
– a failure that can be measured by the enormous disparity between white and black
household wealth, the destruction of unions, the advent of law and order policies that were
thinly disguised apartheid gestures, and the takeover of the two parties by a managerial
class completely connected to the patterns in capitalism traced by Piketty and Saenz –
a class that has succeeded in creating the acceptance of corporations as vessels for looting
by upper management, with all its consequences. To my mind, these are all consequences of the
way mid-century American liberalism fell victim to its own contradictions, and its collapse
has left a vast vacuum.
@11
"If we could replicate that, across the country, the Republican Party would be wiped off the
electoral map."
Let's do it. I look forward to every election henceforth being decided on the basis of
whether one of the candidates groped teenagers or not. Might want to mix in some different
sex acts, though, just to keep people from getting bored.
I read your Guardian piece, again and backwards or from the bottom up -- a method consonant
with its themes -- and liked it better.
That "addled white upper-middle class", self-satisfied that racism is something impolite
and unattractive that other people do, obsessed with CNN's daily attempts to rhyme russiagate
with Watergate and Mueller with Starr, stumbles on in its media-driven fog. The mercenary
consultants who have the apparatus of the Democratic Party firmly in their neoliberal
deathgrip will read the exit polls and send silent lovenotes to the suburban white Republican
women voters, not desperately poor blacks (who mostly do not vote and have nothing to gain
from voting). I cannot say I feel "the left" won; it looks like the Right won, in an
intramural tussle in which "the left" participated only in cheering from the bleachers, not
playing on the field. The "mild centrist" will go to Washington and do as he is bid, when the
bid is high enough.
The Marshall Project dutifully tends to my cognitive dissonance, assuring me Doug Jones's
election is a victory for sentencing reform. The waiter is assuring me that the dish being
served was a great choice from a menu written by people completely disinterested in my views,
tastes or welfare.
Who is rightly convinced here that his cause is a loser?
The targets are many and multifarious. The poor blacks? I suspect the hopelessness of
democracy in Alabama from their viewpoint remains undisturbed. (At least they got thank you's
on Facebook!)
The ones I would like to convince of the hopelessness of politics are not the rebellious
populists in the Republican electorate who rejected Luther Strange, but the ones who proposed
Luther Strange. Or, who put forward Doug Jones, "mild centrist". Neither group is likely to
read reasons to give up into these results. And both constitute "the Right" in a practical,
pro-plutocracy sense.
Pessimism on the left has many flavors, but seems to me to be appropriate to the political
climate. Doug Jones's election is evidence that "the system works" -- at least it can be
interpreted that way by people who really need to be disabused of their complacency that the
system is working and their conviction that the only people who think otherwise are either
irredeemable racists and fools or silly impractical idealistic socialists.
The American political drama takes place on a stage, where the abundant evidence that the
political system as a whole is failing to properly govern or enable fundamental reform is
ignored. The outcries of those alarmed are ignored and muffled, channeled away from anything
to do with electoral politics. The echo chamber of the Media silences with its noise.
I get the reasons why the impulse among the authoritarian followers of the Right to see
demolition done is alarming. Also, why handing the nitro to Trump, Bannon or Moore might
compound the reasons for alarm. But, the Right figuring out how to handle this rebellion does
not help "our" rebellion on the left.
Doug Jones, while being a decent, boring guy, is not in any way representative of the kinds
of races that are going to be run in 2018. Most GOPers know how to dog whistle and keep their
dicks in their pants. Meanwhile, Jones is already listing slowly to the right, with his
bullshit overtures to bipartisanship, voting in line with the senate Republicans and putting
all that sexual harassment stuff behind us (also see Northam in VA). The corporate Dems' new
holy incantation is "Ich bin ein centrist!" and it's not likely to get them a lot of wins
against racists and kleptocapitalist looters, particularly in states with a lower proportion
of PoC voters.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
The waves, the artificial tides of anti-Russian propaganda continue to beat upon the ears
and eyes of Western citizens, spurred by US politicians, bureaucrats and tycoons whose motives
vary from duplicitous to blatantly commercial. It is no coincidence that there has been vastly
increased expenditure on US weaponry by Eastern European countries.
Complementing the weapons' build-up, which is so sustaining and lucrative for the US
industrial-military complex, the naval, air and ground forces of the US-NATO military alliance
continue operations ever closer to Russia's borders.
Shares and dividends in US arms manufacturing companies have rocketed, in a most
satisfactory spinoff from Washington's policy of global confrontation, and the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) records that "arms sales are recognized widely
as an important instrument of state power. States have many incentives to export arms. These
include enhancing the security of allies or partners; constraining the behavior of adversaries;
using the prospect of arms transfers as leverage on governments' internal or external behavior;
and creating the economics of scale necessary to support a domestic arms industry."
The CRS notes that arms deals "are often a key component in Congress's approach to advancing
US foreign policy objectives," which is especially notable around the Baltic and throughout the
Middle East, where US wars have created a bonanza for US weapons makers -- and for the
politicians whom the manufacturers reward so generously for their
support. (Additionally, in 2017 arms manufacturers spent $93,937,493 on
lobbying Congress.)
Some countries, however, do not wish to purchase US weaponry, and they are automatically
categorized as being influenced by Russia, which is blamed for all that has
gone wrong in America over the past couple of years. This classification is especially notable
in the Central Asian Republics.
The US military's Central Command (Centcom) states that its "area of responsibility
spans more than 4 million square miles and is populated by more than 550 million people from 22
ethnic groups, speaking 18 languages . . . and confessing [ sic; probably
'professing'] multiple religions which transect national borders. The demographics create
opportunities for tension and rivalry." Centcom is deeply engaged in the US wars in Iraq, Syria
and Afghanistan, while supporting Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen, and the extent of its
influence in the Pentagon's self-allotted geographical Area of Responsibility is intriguing, to
say the least. Some of its priorities were revealed in March 2017 by the Commander of this
enormous military realm, General Joseph Votel, in
testimony to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in
Washington.
General Votel's description of US "responsibilities" was astonishing in its imperialistic
arrogance.
As Commander of Centcom, General Votel gave the Armed Services Committee a colorful tour of
his territory, describing nations in terms ranging from condescendingly supportive to patently
insolent, and he devoted much time to describing relations with countries abutting Russia, Iran
and China, which nations, he
declared , are trying "to limit US influence in the sub-region." That "sub-region" includes
many countries immediately on the borders of Russia, Iran and China, and averaging 7,000 miles
(11,000 kilometers) from Washington.
First he dealt with Kazakhstan with which the US has its "most advanced military
relationship in Central Asia" in furtherance of which Washington is "making notable progress .
. . despite enduring Russian influence." It is obviously unacceptable to the Pentagon that
Russia wishes to maintain cordial relations with a country with which it has a border of 6,800
kilometers. Then General Votel went into fantasyland by claiming that "Kazakhstan remains the
most significant regional contributor to Afghan stability . . ." which even the members of the
Congressional Committee would have realized is spurious nonsense.
But more nonsense was to follow, with General Votel
referring to Kyrgyzstan in patronizing terms usually associated with a Viceroy or other
colonial master of a region that Votel describes as "widely characterized by pervasive
instability and conflict," which he failed to note were caused by the US wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
He told the Committee that Kyrgyzstan "sees political pressure from its larger, more
powerful neighbors, including Russia, hosting a small Russian airbase outside the capital,
Bishkek. Despite ongoing challenges in our bilateral and security cooperation, we continue to
seek opportunities to improve our mil-to-mil relationship." He did not explain why Kyrgyzstan
should be expected to embrace a military alliance with United States Central Command, but
Viceroys don't have to provide explanations.
Votel then moved to describe Tajikistan with which "our mil-to-mil relationship is deepening
despite Moscow's enduring ties and the presence of the military base near Tajikistan's capital
of Dushanbe, Russia's largest military base outside of its borders." Not only this, says Votel,
but China (having a 400 kilometer border with Tajikistan) has had the temerity to have
"initiated a much stronger military cooperation partnership with Tajikistan, adding further
complexity to Tajikistan's multi-faceted approach to security cooperation."
No : China hasn't added any complexity to Tajikistan's circumstances. What has complicated
their relations is the fact that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos, following the US invasion
of 2001, and drugs and terrorists cross the border (1,300 kilometers long) from Afghanistan
into Tajikistan, which is trying to protect itself. During its sixteen years of war in
Afghanistan there has been no attempt by the United States to secure that border.
None of these countries wants to be forced into a military pact with the United States, and
Turkmenistan (border with Afghanistan 750 kilometers) has made it clear it doesn't want to be
aligned with anyone. But General Votel states that its "UN-recognized policy of 'positive
neutrality' presents a challenge with respect to US engagement." No matter what is desired by
Turkmenistan, it seems, there must always be a way for the United States Central Command to
establish military relations and, as General Votel told the Defence Committee, "we are
encouraged somewhat by Turkmenistan's expressed interest in increased mil-to-mil engagement
with the US within the limits of their 'positive neutrality' policy."
In the minds (to use the word loosely) of General Votel and his kind, it doesn't matter if a
country wants nothing whatever to do with the United States' military machine, and wants very
much to be left alone to get on with its affairs without interference. Adoption of such a
policy by any nation presents a "challenge" and the United States, which in this region is
overseen by General Votel's Central Command, is determined to seek military "engagement"
irrespective of what is desired by governments. Arms sales would swiftly follow.
Votel's tour of his area of responsibility covered Afghanistan, about which his most absurd
assertion was "I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an
influential party in this part of the world. I think it is fair to assume they may be providing
some sort of support to [the Taliban] in terms of weapons or other things that may be
there."
There was not a shred of evidence provided, but the Committee accepted his pronouncement
without question. If an allegation is made about Russia it doesn't matter if it is false. It
must be believed. But unfortunately for the imperial Votel and his deferential audience, a
person with some sense of truth and balance came up two months later with a statement
rubbishing Votel's unfounded and provocative accusation. In May the Director of the US Defence
Intelligence Agency
told a Senate Committee that "We have seen indication that [Russia] offered some level of
support [to the Taliban], but I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being
transferred." The mainstream media gave no publicity to the truth, and continue to blame Russia
for all the ills that befall the US Empire, at home and overseas.
The state of affairs was summed up admirably by
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation on December 4 when he wrote that "Central
to any national-security state is the need for official enemies, ones that are used to frighten
and agitate the citizenry. If there are no official enemies, the American citizenry might begin
asking some discomforting questions: What do we need a national-security state for? Why not
abolish the CIA and dismantle the military-industrial complex and the NSA. Why can't we have
our limited-government, constitutional republic back?"
The Motto of the Pentagon's Central
Command is "Prepare, Pursue, Prevail." and the Central Asian Republics would be well-advised to
bear in mind these threats and think hard about the underlying motif of the US
military-industrial complex which is "Propagandize, Provoke, Profit."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
Set of YouTube video on the subject. Some exchanges (especially the first two) are very interesting indeed. Although Rosenstein
mostly ignored the questions.
There are several facts which suggest that employees of CIA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), sympathetic to the neoliberal/globalist wing of Democrat Party (Clinton wing), used the power of their offices and (with the
assistance of foreign nationals) tried to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, first to exonerate her and then obtain
information to prevent the election of Donald Trump, to collect "insurance" -- compromising materials on him in case he win, and after
his surprise win, to provide a basis for his impeachment and removal from the Office by forcing on his administration the Special Prosecutor.
From the Congressional investigations involving the Department of Justice and the FBI it looks like that those institutions are
protecting themselves at the expense of transparency and accountability to the American people.
In other words, the government employees involved consider the survival of the Deep State more important than the survival of the
Constitution. That is the definition of national security state.
"... Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment. ..."
Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say
could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment.
"... Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said. ..."
"... "Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there, particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained. ..."
"Yes, there is," Barnes replied. "In fact, it's one of the directions that a future
investigation can take. A future investigation doesn't have to focus on whatever it is the
Democrats or liberals want. It can focus on the illegal leaks that took place."
"As I mentioned the other day to a liberal lawyer friend of mine, the worst thing ever
accused concerning Nixon was about using private resources to try to illegally spy on people.
Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include
the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was
not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special
court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said.
"Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally
tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there,
particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained.
"I'm sure the liberals would go nuts if Trump tomorrow started listening in on every
conversation Obama had with anybody that's foreign, or that Bill Clinton had with anybody
that's foreign, or that Hillary Clinton had with anybody that's foreign. So it's a dangerous,
precarious path that Obama has opened up, and hopefully there is a full investigation into that
activity," he said.
"You clearly also have lots of illegal leaks going on, particularly as it related to the
recent Yemen issue involving the widow of the Navy SEAL who passed way, that became a big issue
at the State of the Union. There you had people reporting that no intelligence was gathered.
Well, that's an illegal leak. It turns out that they're wrong, they were lying about
what intelligence developed or the fact that intelligence did develop, but they
shouldn't have been out there saying anything like that," he noted.
"There are people willing to leak the most sensitive national security secrets about any
particular matter, solely to have a one-day political hit story on Trump. These are people who
are violating their oath, and violating the law. Hopefully there is ultimately criminal
punishment," Barnes urged.
"This is far worse than the Plame matter that got all that attention, that got a special
prosecutor in W's reign. This is far, far worse than any of that. This is putting national
security at risk. This is an effective de facto coup attempt by elements of the deep state. So
hopefully there's a meaningful investigation and a meaningful prosecution of these people who
have engaged in reckless criminal acts for their personal political partisan purposes," he
said.
My own personal take, from 16,000 kilometers away, is not that it was a matter of black
and white voters or rich and poor voters but something that is a bit more simpler and it is
this. If you stand a reasonable, moderate candidate against a raging nut job, then the
majority of the times the moderate will win. If you stand a vile, corrupt candidate up
against a raging nut job, then there is an even chance that the raging nut job will win.
Alabama is an example of the former and the US itself in 2016 an example of the later.
You are too kind. Truthfully, if Roy Moore hadn't (allegedly) molested underage girls, he
would have won. He would still be a raging nut job (or as Lambert describes him, a
swivel-eyed loon).
I think that the future of Alabama politics is controlled by white millennials, though. I
certainly would like to see how Moore fared among that segment. From conversations with my
sons and their friends, it appears the Republican party is widely recognized as a confederacy
of contemptible dunces.
A sad irony is that in 2016, many establishment Ds, including IIRC the Clintons
themselves, were hoping for a DJT primary win on the theory that they would get the kind of
result that Jones
Yes that sums it up. There is not much consolation in Moore's narrow loss for those hoping
the deep south in particular but the country in general might having shaken off its
hallucinatory vision of what American governance should look like.
How would a regional Bernie Sanders type candidate have done in Alabama in a general
election against Moore? The NPR barber interview linked a few days ago raises the question by
suggesting Jones was largely silent on the issues that mattered (to that man) and therefore
how a more vocal advocate for the poor, public education, universal health care would have
fared against Moore.
I'm not sure if that's entirely fair, he was very vocal on access to healthcare
(especially for lower income citizens) and made it really the core policy piece of his
campaign. One of his other major policy pieces (job retraining) also for into that mold
pretty nicely. He didn't frame things as starkly as rich v poor, but had a pretty traditional
(I.e., not neoliberal) democratic message.
That's interesting and hopeful that a candidate might even try to push issues like single
payer, pro union, anti right-to-work, $15 minimum wage and do even better against Moore.
I am likely unfairly judging Alabama and the deep south from another country and without
the context of cable news and the MSM reporting, just assuming the standard Democratic Party
line of saying little concrete on issues while inflating a giant, empty promise balloon of
hope and change.
Rev Kev: is your information about the "nut job" solely based on the reports from the
media? Or have you met the man, lived in Alabama, experienced the culture or measured the
degree of commitment to their cultural beliefs?
Having run for state level office, I understand the vitriol of the opposition. And having
lived in Alabama, I understand the culture.
Consider that a politician is a slippery character trying to appease many sides and
influences. Whereas a fundamentalist Christian stands for something specific and that belief
system is attacked.
Perhaps the white voters didn't want Alabama to be judged by the media and they chose the
easiest path.
Hi. Even in the Antipodes we get news reports from places like Alabama as that election
was so newsworthy. My take is what I have personally seen of clips of this bloke in action
and most people here were singularly unimpressed. That man should really swap that pony he
rides on for a thoroughbred or something that size by the way. And yes, I have horses
here.
And if an Aussie politician pulled out a gun in the middle of a rally here like More did
there, the cops would probably arrest him after crash-tackling him. Granted politicians can
take on the style of the people that they want to serve but I am willing to bet that the bulk
majority of Alabamans are decent people that have never been accused of dealings with
underage girls to the point that they have found themselves banned from a shopping mall.
Alabama deserves better. Your Republicans there should have gone with a better candidate who
would have almost certainly won that election in your state IMHO.
And then there is Moore's "charitable foundation", through which he has been paying
himself and family a decent salary for a few years, courtesy of politically like-minded
donors. Most of whom are from Alabama, and who don't themselves have anywhere near such nice
salaries.
Even by the standards of Deep South politics, the man is a skank, and many down there know
it. The chickenhawk allegations were the cherry on top.
@Nick – Rumors of Roy Moore's peccadilloes have been floating around for years, but
none of the women were ready or willing to speak out. The #MeToo movement, I think, has
allowed many women, all over the country, to finally feel that they might get a fair shake
from speaking out, rather than being put through the wringer of disbelief and further
harassment. It was only with the victim's disclosures that this story could be exposed.
I have a couple of takeaways, first Moore was running well behind a typical Republican
before the sexual misconduct allegations 6-10% ahead of Jones rather than the 15-20% one
would expect. Second that this really does show a path for Dems to be competitive and even
win in the deep south by carrying 1/4-1/3 of the white vote and holding on to 90% plus of the
AA vote. A pro-life (with a sane position on birth control), pro-gun (though not necessarily
pro-NRA) economic leftest could rack up a lot of votes in places like MS, AL, LA and SC. I
doubt the DNC are smart enough to see this or even want to if they did, but maybe some
qualified people with such a belief set will see it and run in Dem primaries for local, State
and Federal offices.
This, like the Clinton loss, is perhaps too close an election to lay to any single factor.
So while I find this analysis salutary, I don't necessarily buy it as THE answer. Two others
that I would suggest are crucial: the degree of the white vote that was dampened by the ugly
news about a candidate it might otherwise have turned out for; and Shelby's call for
write-in. As I went to bed on the night, the number of write-in votes outweighed Jones's
margin.
1. Had the GOP elected someone slightly less awful, they would have defeated Doug Jones
– the vote the GOP was reliant on usually simply stayed home
2. The Democrats are taking the wrong lessons from this
3. They may very well end up dangerously complacent in 2018 for the midterms and perhaps in
2020 as well
4. The GOP never truly backed Moore at all – they were hesitant to do so
5. Unless they deliver tangible economic benefits for white and black Alabama residents
alike, the Democrats have little to offer
6. There seems to be frustration and well justified anger, in my opinion, at both parties
7. The mainstream media will spin this the way the plutocrats want
8. It's likely the Democrats will double down on identity politics as it is what what their
donors want them to do
It"s a sad situation. I think NC posted a few days ago the appalling situation African
Americans faced.
It's hard not to compare the politics of America to the corruption that exists in much of
the developing world, the massive inequality, the failing infrastructure, and the brutal
police forces. Sadly both parties are in bed with the plutocracy and will make it all
worse.
Most people are taking the wrong lessons from this. Moore was barely defeated despite
everything. It's sad and infuriating because all of this corrupt politics has a dramatic
impact on the living standards of society.
rumors
, denials, whistleblowers
,
backlash , demands, threats,
lies , bias, and
anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday
that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.
"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to
Politico .
The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential
retreat.
Trump's allies complained
this weekend about the way Mueller's team went about obtaining from the presidential
transition. Mueller's spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate
steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the
special counsel's office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously
served on Mueller's team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.
And while Trump said "I'm not,"
Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed
"many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not
looking good."
seth? he was the guy that stole the dnc and podesta emails (well at least the dnc emails)
and got them to julian assange. after he was murdered (well at least shot twice) on the
streets of d.c. (he actually died in a hospital; probably bears some looking into), julian
offered a reward for info on it, making many believe he was wiki's source.
seymour hersh, who followed the case closely, thinks the same, but agrees with the d.c.
police that he was just mugged, not shot by say hillary and podesta using imran awan or
something. http://archive.is/lD4BV if
so, for a lucky lady that hillary clinton has some real bad luck. but it is poetically
fitting that someone who actually killed dozens of people as a private citizen (and maybe a
million as a public servant), would be convicted in the public's eye of the one she didn't
really do.
Mueller has painted himself into a cesspool that is exploding. If he had an ounce of sense
or honor he would get the eff out before he has to start covering his own tracks. But don't
bet on Mueller doing the right thing. His pals in politics and the press have made him out to
be some kind of saint when he really is all t'aint, no saint (don't ask me what t'aint is,
ask someone else.)
Don't fire Mueller now- the cesspool is bursting at the seems and Mueller is standing
right under it.
It makes little sense to me that if Seth Rich was an idealistic young man, standing on
principle and conviction, who along with his brother contacted WikiLeaks and arranged to give
it evidence of Hillary's and Debbie's treachery against Sanders, why he would then have been
reported to be looking forward to joining the Hillary campaign staff in the Brooklyn
headquarters.
CrowdStrike (run by Shawn Henry, who is a former FBI official, promoted by Mueller), which
provided the narrative to the DNC that the "Russians did it," has never been independently
verified in their conclusions by the FBI. Or Mueller. Pull that thread and the sweater starts
to unravel.
Mueller doesn't have it in him to step aside. Therefore he needs to be indicted for
prosecutorial abuse. Slap his ass down hard. Handcuffs would be a nice touch.
Mueller didn't oppose the raid of Paul Manafort at 5 a.m. in the morning with guns drawn.
Sounds like a good law enforcement technique for the buzzard.
"... What about the Logan Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ..."
"... Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations." ..."
"... I hold no brief for Flynn, whose conduct while working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, his dubious efforts on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case. ..."
"... Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they have evidence of real ..."
One of the unfortunate ironies of the manufactured "Russiagate" controversy is the perception of the FBI as a friend of liberty and
justice. But the FBI has never been a friend of liberty and justice. Rather, as James Bovard
writes , it "has a long
record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that 'the FBI has
the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.' This has practically been the Bureau's motif since its
creation in 1908 . The FBI has always used its 'good guy' image to keep a lid on its crimes."
Bovard has made a vocation of cataloging the FBI's many offenses against liberty and justice, for which we are forever in his
debt.
Things are certainly not different today. Take the case of Michael Flynn, the retired lieutenant general who spent less than a
month as Donald Trump's national-security adviser. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in connection with conversations
he had with Russia's then-ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, between Trump's election and inauguration. One need not
be an admirer of Flynn – and for many reasons I certainly am not – to be disturbed by how the FBI has handled this case.
One ought to be immediately suspicious whenever someone is charged with or pleads guilty to lying to the FBI without any underlying
crime being charged. Former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy
points
out :
When a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty
to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea
proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken
by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the
investigation.
That is not happening in Flynn's situation. Instead, like [former Trump foreign-policy "adviser" George] Papadopoulos, he is
being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.
When the FBI questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, it already had the transcripts of those conversations – the
government eavesdrops on the representatives of foreign governments, among others, and Flynn had been identified, or "unmasked,"
as the ambassador's conversation partner. The FBI could have simply told Flynn the transcripts contained evidence of a crime (assuming
for the sake of argument they did) and charged him with violating the Logan Act or whatever else the FBI had in mind.
But that's not what happened. Instead, the FBI asked Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, apparently to test him. If he
lied (which would mean he's pretty stupid since he once ran the Defense Intelligence Agency and must have known about the transcripts!)
or had a bad memory, he could have been charged with lying to the FBI.
What is arguably most disturbing about this case is that then-National Security Adviser Flynn was pushed into a perjury trap
by Obama administration holdovers at the Justice Department who concocted an unorthodox legal rationale for subjecting Flynn to an
FBI interrogation four days after he took office, testing Flynn's recollection of the conversations while the FBI agents had transcripts
of the calls intercepted by the National Security Agency.
In other words, the Justice Department wasn't seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
– the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations
and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.
For Americans who worry about how the pervasive surveillance powers of the US government could be put to use criminalizing
otherwise constitutionally protected speech and political associations, Flynn's prosecution represents a troubling precedent.
Why didn't the FBI charge Flynn with an underlying crime? It might be because his conversations with Kislyak were not criminal.
McCarthy writes:
A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the
Russians – initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing
the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis
for a "collusion" case arising out of Russia's election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime – he'd
be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.
David Stockman shows
that the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller themselves indicate the Flynn-Kislyak conversations contained no evidence of criminal
behavior.
Flynn spoke to Kislyak to ask that Russia not escalate tensions after President Obama imposed sanctions last December
for the alleged election meddling and to askthatRussia not vote to condemn Israel , via a UN Security
Council resolution, for its illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. In other words, not only were Flynn's discussions with
Kislyak unexceptional – presidential transition-team foreign-policy officials have spoken with representatives of other governments
in the past – but the content of those discussions should have raised no suspicions. Would non-escalation of the sanctions controversy
or a UN veto have undermined Obama's foreign policy? I don't see how. (True, the Obama administration abstained on the resolution,
but would Obama have objected had Russia vetoed it? By the way, Russia voted for it, and the resolution passed, as it should have.)
The Flynn plea certainly does nothing to indicate "collusion" with the Russians. For one thing, the conversations were after the
election. And perhaps more important, Kislyak was not looking for favors from Flynn; on the contrary, Flynn was lobbying the Russians
(successfully on the sanctions – Vladimir Putin did not retaliate – and unsuccessfully on the UN resolution.) Where's the evidence
of Russian influence on the Trump team? There was foreign influence, but it was from Israel, a
regular meddler in the American political process . All indications are that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump son-in-law
and special envoy to everywhere Jared Kushner to lobby the world to defeat the UN resolution. Kushner, who has helped
finance
illegal Israeli settlements , then directed Flynn to call every Security Council member, not just Russia.
What about the Logan
Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized
"correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures
or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United
States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,
or both."
Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply
to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations."
Note also that only two indictments
have been brought in 218 years: in 1803 and 1852. Both cases were dropped. Far more serious contacts with foreign governments have
occurred. In 1968 Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon (with help from Henry Kissinger who was working in the Johnson
administration) had a representative
persuade
the president of South Vietnam to boycott the peace talks President Lyndon Johnson had been arranging with North Vietnam. That
decision most likely prolonged the Vietnam war and resulted in combat deaths that would not have occurred. Unlike the Flynn case,
Nixon's action undercut the sitting president's policy and, more important, the interests of the American people.
I hold no brief for Flynn, whose
conduct while working for
Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan,
his dubious efforts
on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone
cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case.
Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they
have evidence of real offenses against persons and property, bring charges. Otherwise, leave us all alone.
As "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
does not have time frame they are not limited to election campaign and allow fishing expedition into Trump business dealings.
Notable quotes:
"... any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; ..."
"... any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; ..."
After this striking admission, in effect acknowledging the weakness of the "Russian
collusion" narrative more than year into the investigation and media hysteria, CNN goes on to
report that these claimed grand jury subpoenas extend completely outside the scope of the
supposed "Russia" investigation. CNN describes some subpoenas as "unconnected to the 2016
elections" and gives examples, including the tenant lists of Trump Organization properties and
documents related to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
For the record, according to his order of appointment ,
Mueller's independent investigation was to be limited to:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).
Regulation 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a) is part of the federal regulations authorizing special
counsels. It expands a special counsel's jurisdiction to crimes, such as perjury or obstruction
of justice, that interfere with his original named responsibility.
"... Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the
legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into
potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Cornyn spoke out via Twitter, in response to a tweet by former Attorney General Eric Holder,
who defended Mueller against criticism and against efforts to urge the president to remove him
from his post.
Speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the American people, Republicans in Congress be
forewarned:any attempt to remove Bob Mueller will not be tolerated.These are BS attacks on
him/his staff that are blatantly political-designed to hide the real wrongdoing. Country not
party
In response, Cornyn tweeted to Holder, "You don't" (referring to Holder's claim to be
speaking "on behalf of the vast majority of the American people."
He added later that "Mueller needs
to clean house of partisans," referring to reports that FBI agent Peter Strzok had been removed
from the investigation due to anti-Trump texts, and that other lawyers on the Mueller team have
expressed strongly anti-Trump feelings or supported the campaign of his 2016 opponent, former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Later, asked by the Washington Post 's in-house liberal columnist, Greg Sargent,
whether he would accept the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation, Cornyn suggested that would
depend on the outcome:
The left-wing HuffPost translated that remark as meaning that Cornyn would only consider the
probe legitimate if "if Republicans like his findings."
However, a more generous interpretation would be that Cornyn would wait to see if Mueller
remained within his mandate, or used his sweeping powers to investigated unrelated matters.
The Russia investigation being overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is beyond
corrupt, beyond political and has now turned into an open-ended fishing expedition.
Rosenstein, who like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has glaring, inexcusable conflicts of
interest in the case, insisted to Fox News' Chris Wallace that he will keep Mueller from
expanding his s not on a witch hunt.
"If he finds evidence of a crime that's within in the scope of what Director Mueller and I
have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can," Rosenstein said on
"Fox News Sunday." "If it's something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting
attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation."
Rosenstein says he won't let the special counsel turn into a fishing expedition? It already
has. The whole investigation was supposed to be about President Trump's campaign supposedly
colluding with the Russians. This has gone on 11 months, no smoking gun proving it ever
surfaced.
Yet, instead of ending it there, Mueller is reportedly now looking into the finances of
President Trump and the Trump Organization and associates of President Trump. He has impaneled
a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where the president got a little over four percent of the
vote.
What Rosenstein really said was that he has now given Mueller the green light to do whatever
he wants. Even respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, has said Rosenstein needs
to recuse himself.
After all, Rosenstein is likely going to be a witness in the investigation that he himself
caused because he took the lead in writing the letter to President Trump on why former FBI
Director James Comey should be fired. Mueller reportedly regards that as possible obstruction
of justice.
Rosenstein is also the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn't know or
didn't care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller
interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director's job. You can't make this up.
Rosenstein has sat by while Mueller, with an unlimited budget, has assembled a team of 16
lawyers. Half have made political donations, shockingly, all to Democrats. How is that OK? If
the tables were turned, would a Democrat allow a special counsel to only appoint Republican
donors?
It all comes down to this: Does Rod Rosenstein know what is going to happen if Mueller's
mission creep continues to go unchecked? How does he think voters are going to feel? How many
Trump supporters will feel robbed of their right and their vote in the free election of the
president of the United States?
That would be bad for the country. It would be bad for the system of justice. And it would
be bad for anyone who believes in a constitutional republic.
Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue on "Hannity," Aug. 7, 2017
Robert Mueller does have massive conflict of interest -- Strzok-gate proves his inability to
run a dispassionate investigation
Notable quotes:
"... we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America." ..."
Waters said, "The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump.
But the scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his
presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters.
Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America."
"... Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling. ..."
"... Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for an indictment. ..."
"... Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk. ..."
"... There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly. ..."
"... I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost. ..."
"... The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party, murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS, State Department and White House, etc etc etc. ..."
"... Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by calling Trump and his base deplorables. ..."
"... People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump. ..."
"... Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary. ..."
"... IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a "botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch? ..."
"... At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump without breaking stride. ..."
"... The Mueller shenanigans have for months been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy. ..."
"... The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to force him from office. ..."
"... My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left loathes. ..."
"... Listen to the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and conquer." ..."
"... Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins. At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist string-pullers. ..."
Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution
denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's
expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be
ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.
Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for
refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And
Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July
2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in
transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft
of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for
an indictment.
We also now know that helping to edit Comey's first draft to soften its impact was Deputy
FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia,
received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump
to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow
fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a
dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump
hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out
Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for
hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the
investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to
tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.
In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a
connection between Hillary's campaign and Russian spies -- to find dirt to smear and destroy
Trump and his campaign -- has been fairly well established.
By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the
Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on
Trump. Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and
FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the
U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels. While the truth
of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey's FBI rose like a hungry trout on
learning of its contents. There are credible allegations Comey's FBI sought to hire Steele and
used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump -- and that its contents
were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.
This week, we learned that the Justice Department's Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion
during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing
is starting to stink.
Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree? Is Mueller's Dump Trump team
investigating the wrong campaign?
There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to
break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump
has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted
and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to
convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the
executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go
quietly.
In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there's gonna be a "whole lotta shakin' goin'
on."
Trump has had to work with corrupt officials in govt, overwhelming bureaucracy, unions, media
and criminal elements. All present in anti-Trump DC.
I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile
elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and
Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost.
The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from
Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from
the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton
Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party,
murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS,
State Department and White House, etc etc etc.
There is no equivalent trail of collusion, corruption, fraud, slander, sedition etc from
Trump, the GOP or the Conservative Party while the DNC and the Mueller investigation
reeks.
Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired
proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and
sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by
calling Trump and his base deplorables.
I think Trump is playing nice and being patient. He is fighting back but with great
restraint. I don't think Trump has pulled out all guns. My guess, if and when this does not
work, then Sessions and Rosenstein will be fired and replaced with people who will have
special prosecutors investigate the Mueller investigation, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama,
the FBI and the DOJ. Imagine how devastating it would be to release information proving Bill
Clintons rapes and murders. Hillary may be a master at deflection and obfuscation but Trump
will scorch and burn. Of this I have no doubt. Infact, it would not surprise me if Trump has
someone in the intelligence community reporting directly to him and covertly performing these
investigations so Trump can either scorch and burn in the media, in the press room or to
appoint special counsels for what I cited above.
People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama
but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump.
"In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found."
Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC
who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination
campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary.
IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a
"botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch?
The media tells us this administrations support is waning, so impeachment is a hot topic. I am
not convinced the American people en mass will support the process.
Most of these comments are almost as ridiculous as 'RussiaGate' itself. One must have a very
strong bias to believe any of this (I am a lifelong Democrat, but I'm still able to think).
At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and
more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump
without breaking stride.
"Unfortunately, your nay-sayers seem confined to calling you a "Do-Do Head" and other remarks
more suited to a preschool classroom."
Amen to that. They might be willfully ignorant. The Mueller shenanigans have for months
been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed
Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy.
The neocons forgot that Richard Nixon saved Israel in the 1973 war. He emptied the NATO
reserves to replenish their lost weapons. Had he not done this, maybe a negotiated peace
based on a fair fight would have negated many of the problems we face today? Then Ford came
along and they realized Oops! A mistake has been made. Carter stopped drinking the neocon
KoolAide when the facts became irrefutable. Comparing Nixon to Trump is a non-starter. Nixon
had an incredibly high-IQ and he was pro-America first, second, .nth.
I remain a huge fan of Pres Nixon. I often think he should have fought it out. Having chosen
not to do so – he did indeed go quietly. And he did so for reasons unrelated to
Watergate.
He also remains one of the most astute and intelligent men we have ever had in the WH. Had
he been an insider, he would not have had faced the storm that came by way a lot of
hyperbolic nonsense. It easy to forget how much he and his admin accomplished despite the
period.
I remain supportive of Pres. Trump and despite areas of disagreement, I have yet to see
any evidence that would even hint that he should resign. I don't think there's any evidence that the country is uniquely on a path to destruction
from Pres Trump admin.
-- -- -- -- -- --
"4 indictment and or guilt pleas. Nothing there you say?"
I don't think you grasp the breadth that a SP has. It is virtually limitless. That means
one can indicted for something that is accused years before and totally unrelated to the
original purposes of the appointment. It was that breadth that bothered Pres. Nixon. And as
it turned out he was concerned with good reason.
-- -- -- -- -- -
"Middle East was causing a huge recession that led to Democratic wave in 1974."
The die were cast, despite all of the issues, Pres Nixon out maneuvered and outsmarted his
critics on the issues and they bit one card, charges of misbehavior on the heels of a very
contentious foreign policy. He could have only survived had he just chosen to readily give on
the plotters and moved on. Pardoning them later.
His choice to protect his legacy in its entirety -- led to bad decisions, that fed the
appearance of guilt -- when the tapes came out --
it was done, despite little of anything incriminating on them. He chose to depart quietly.
And in the end, so nil was his accusations that he has had his tenure revived and I suspect
with time, that will continue.
The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out
to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election
that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to
force him from office.
This is an obvious truth, whether you want to call it a deep state conspiracy or something
else. Trump is an imperfect man, but he has good ideas and plans for improving the life of
the ordinary citizen.
One of the ways I know he is essentially decent is the hysterical hatred the left has for
him. The left is the true enemy of this country, not Russia or radical Islam. In the past 50
years they have done great harm to this country.
The Conservative establishment has been utterly ineffective at stopping the destructive
onslaght of the left, and in matters of foreign policy, have proven to be thoroughly corrupt
and dishonest.
My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but
endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel
unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the
absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the
world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it
consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an
Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man
at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left
loathes.
If Trump is successfully removed from office, I predict a breakout of serious unrest from
the people.
Do you have multiple personalities? One moment you are defending true conservatism and the
next you seem to be supporting somebody because they have an R next to their name. Trump is a
serious danger to our country. Far more than ISIS or any Muslim terrorists.
George Washington wrote a letter of farewell to the American People in 1796, in which he
warned against the corruption of self-interested political parties. He called them political
factions, but he is referring to the corruption and treasonous tendencies of the Democrat and
Republican Parties of today, who are much more interested in the advancement of their party
than the well-being of the Country, the protection of the Constitution or the rule of
law.
Both of these now treasonous parties are funded and controlled by much the same global
financial interests and are currently more loyal to their foreign paymasters -- which
includes many foreign despots -- than they are to our country. The corruption of each of the
two major political parties feeds on that of the other. Both parties have grown into
foreign-controlled monsters. Individual Congressmen take orders from the party leadership,
the lapdogs of their party bosses, instead of serving the interests of the nation.
The extreme partisanship and generalized demonization of members of the other party is a
form of brainwashing that keeps Democrats and Republicans voting for their respective
parties, no matter how corrupt the politicians of their own party have become. Listen to
the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an
unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and
conquer." People should concentrate on specific misdeeds of individuals and not just be
the cheerleaders of their own party. Both parties are parasitical entities feeding on the
rotting carcass of America, which they have created.
Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party
nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political
factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the
Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins.
At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only
goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist
string-pullers.
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history. ..."
"... Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the "subordination" so necessary for politics. ..."
"... When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. ..."
"... It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic aristocracy." ..."
"... When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare. ..."
"... In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. ..."
"... To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. ..."
"... It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America's Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. ..."
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy.
Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental
exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics
frequently bemoan a "loss of democracy" due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian
measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption,
deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic
exceptions . The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing
the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction
between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy
because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to
confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous
rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for
themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most
successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a
country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth -- a plutocratic colonial
oligarchy, in short -- has succeeded not only in buying the label of "democracy" to market
itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and
psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and
well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this
article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained
and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present
).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the
freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those
who settled on the shores of the "new world," with few exceptions, did not respect the fact
that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living
there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and
killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately
thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the
indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to
North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women
were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and
equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and
the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The
former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the
overwhelming majority, meaning "the people," was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and
unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and
establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the
contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of
European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of
uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable
of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly
necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if
the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the
"subordination" so necessary for politics.
When the eminent members of the landowning class met
in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to
establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of
the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided
for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to
vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the
overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators
were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators,
and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President.
It is in this context that Patrick Henry
flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further
clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic
aristocracy."
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no
significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this
is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply
meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began
around the time of "Indian killer" Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign in the 1830s.
Presenting himself as a 'democrat,' he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the
people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and
Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations
term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the
people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives.
However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States
presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those
judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights
(Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's history, and still
today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the "clinically insane,"
political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as
long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are
pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do
not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the "choice" -- overseen by
an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme --
regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress
them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates," according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "that economic elites and
organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S.
government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no
independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite
Domination [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected.
It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries,
attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries,
and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is
just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the
FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and
likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine operations
against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23).
Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers
Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of
surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000
days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing."
"... Scared and panicking Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities: as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification and/or protection. ..."
Obama and Clinton thought they had the election in the bag. They broke surveillance laws thinking that Clinton would be in
the Whitehouse to cover it anyway. Imagine their shock on election day when they realized how many felonies would be exposed when
Trump took over.........cover-up.
Look at her face at 2:06 ... Scared and panicking
Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a
legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities:
as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification
and/or protection.
Congressman Tells Rod Rosenstein That James Comey BROKE THE LAW then Rosenstein Agrees! 12/13/17
Congressman Louie Gohmert brings up the fact that past FBI Director James Comey broke federal law and FBI employee policy by intentionally
leaking a memo of his conversations with President Donald Trump to a friend to then leak to the press. Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein then agrees with the Congressman.
"... Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated. ..."
"... He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the fiasco. ..."
"... That guy wanted to "kill Russians" and "kill Iranians". He's not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview that he thought if there was
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller
would have found it already and that the evidence would've been leaked by now. RT America's
Anya Parampil has more.
Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual
revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated.
He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the
intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the
fiasco.
What boggles the mind is there are 3 or 4 solid ways to go after Trump that don't involve
Russia, but the media doesn't seem to be interested in those.
That is because a) it doesn't exonerate the DNC over it's shitty performance in 2016, and
b) it doesn't push the new cold war (which in turn boosts arms sales, and gives the elite a
way to terrify and therefore control the populace). They thought it was going to work, but
it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Nothingburger is about to be exposed for what it
is.
American politics is a clown show and it's actually embarrassing to watch, the world is
laughing at America because it's like a badly written soap opera live on TV.
Michael Morell is a psychopath and the kind of guy who'd usually be pushing the Russia
narrative. If he is saying this - well that's a mind blowing death blow to the big lie.
Amazing. For once in his pathetic life he actually makes a correct analysis. Fuck
me.
CIA INFILTRATED TOP LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE FBI. CIA MUST BE BLOWN TO PIECES LIKE PRESIDENT
KENNEDY SAID. IF THE CIA WOULD STICK TO THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE
IN THE MESS IT IS IN NOW.
Morell didn't think through the implications of his actions! If that's the case it would
be the first move in his life he hadn't thought through. These people think we are cabbages
and believe anything, whether its Comey schoolboy act or Morell lack of foresight, we are
expected to suck it up, its just plain insulting they don't even try and mask their deceit
anymore
Former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, gives a surprisingly honest interview in
which he admits that leaking and bashing by the intelligence community against an incoming
president might not have been the best idea.
People need to go to jail for this. Too much power is in the hands of the shadow
government. The democratic party along with the republican establishment need to be exposed
for the snakes that they really are, thank you HA !!
"... House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were released the same day . ..."
"... Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc. ..."
"... I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants. ..."
"... If by "insurance policy" Strzok meant the dossier, which was the basis for a FISA warrant, I'd say they were outside the law. ..."
"... Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain, Sessions....... ..."
In November. Sessions
pushed back on the need for a special counsel to investigate a salacious anti-Trump dossier
paid for in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and whether or not the FBI used the largely
unverified dossier to launch the Russia investigation. Sessions told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
that it would take "a factual basis that meets the standard of a special counsel," adding "You
can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it
meets the standards it requires. I would say, 'looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a
special counsel "
A flood of GOP lawmakers along with President Trump's outside counsel Jay Sekulow have
renewed calls for a separate special counsel investigation of the Department of Justice and the
FBI amid revelations that top FBI officials
conspired to tone down former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary
Clinton - altering or removing key language which effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's
beahvior. The
officials implicated are former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,
Peter Strzok, Strzok's supervisor E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and DOJ Deputy General
Counsel Trisha Anderson .
Also under recent scrutiny are a trove of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok to
his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page showing extreme bias against then-candidate Trump, while
both of them were actively engaged in the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia
investigation. GOP lawmakers claim the FBI launched its investigation into Russian collusion
based on the 34-page dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - which hired the
CIA wife of a senior DOJ official to assist in digging up damaging information on
5then-candidate Trump .
A particularly disturbing text message between Strzok and Page was leaked to the press last
week referencing an "
insurance policy " in case Trump were to be elected President. Strzok wrote to Page: " I
want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way
he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk ." It's like an insurance policy in
the unlikely event you die before you're 40.... "
House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by
Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for
Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet
sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group
on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson,
co-founder of Fusion GPS.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr
Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in
front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce
and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were
released the same day .
So with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying things may have "more innocent explanations"
here are some specific questions for the AG to answer:
Did Peter Strzok innocently tell his mistress that there was an " insurance policy"
against a Trump win, which likely referenced the Russia investigation which GOP lawmakers
think was based on an unverified dossier?
Was Peter Strzok innocently texting Lisa Page " F Trump " while he was the lead
investigator on the Clinton email case?
Was Peter Strzok's edit of the phrase "Gross negligence" to "extremely careless"
innocent? It very innocently changed the entire legal standing of the case from criminal
conduct to a layman's opinion of carelessness.
18 U.S. Code '
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
Was Peter Strzok innocently calling Trump " a f*cking idiot " and a "
loathsome human" before investigating him?
Did FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's "damage control team" innocently change their
conclusion that Hillary Clinton's server was " possibly " hacked, rather than " reasonably
likely " - language which significantly altered the seriousness of Clinton's mishandling of
classified information?
Were all references to the FBI working with other members of the intelligence community
on Clinton's private server innocently scrubbed from Comey's exoneration statement - making
it look like a much smaller investigation?
Before he was demoted for doing so - did senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr innocently meet
with MI6 spy Christopher Steele who assembled the salacious 'Trump-Russia' dossier, and then
also innocently meet with Glenn Simpson, co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS?
Fusion commissioned Steele to create the dossier, which relied on senior Russian
officials.
Did Fusion GPS innocently hire Bruce Ohr's CIA wife, Nellie Ohr, to gather damaging
information on President Trump? If there weren't such innocent explanations for everything,
one might think Nellie Ohr could have possibly passed information from the DOJ to Fusion GPS
and vice versa.
Did Hillary Clinton and the DNC innocently pay Fusion GPS $1,024,408 through law firm
Perkins Coie, which then paid Steele $168,000?
In addition to the 'Trump-Russia' dossier, did Fusion GPS innocently arrange the Trump
Tower "setup" meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian Attorney? Or
attempt to link Donald Trump to billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ? Or try to push
the debunked claim that a secret email server existed between Trump Tower and Moscow's Alfa
bank - which Alfa bank executives are suing Fusion GPS over?
The list goes on and on, but hey: sometimes things that might appear to be bad in the press
have more innocent explanations...
No! The true explanation cuts across the grain of the existing miasma currently being
perpetrated as truth by the senior management at the FBI. One being ignored and covered up by
the mainstream media. We have senior management at the top federal law enforcement agency
that has willfully chosen to elevate their personal political opinion and beliefs above their
sworn duty to uphold constitutional law. And this "explanation" is just the latest attempt to
reinforce a violently shaking house of cards. The question that presents itself is whether we
have the moral backbone as a country to correct our course. The outcome is questionable. And
yet there is room for hope.
"Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" Appointing a second Special Counsel could be interpreted as an interruption. I'm not
defending Sessions here, he simply might be doing exactly what his boss is asking him to
do.
Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental
gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc.
"The AAZ Empire the Judiciary domain is like central banking and media a goy-free zone. All
lawyers, attorneys, judges, etc. are members of the BAR association, a private, Zion
controlled monopoly, whose internal rules and regulations, that all BAR members are sworn to,
supersedes the constitutions and laws of all nation states."
This quote is not mine,but it reflects exactly what I think. If you do not believe this,do
a search about BAR association.
Look at her picture. You know she's a "chosen",even without knowing her name
Sessions is a gatekeeper. Like the Donald.
The simple fact that Hillary Clinton is not in jail, with the OVERWHELMING evidence we have
against her, that the Weiner lap top has disappeared with all 650 000 incriminating
e-mails, that all the Clinton dead pool is OVERFLOWING, including with the recent death of Dr.
Dean Lorich, who had knowledge about the Clinton Foundation doings in Haiti, Seth Rich's
death, etc. ALL THESE are proofs that we do not have a DOJ, an AG(which are named by the
EXECUTIVE branch) .
This leads to only one conclusion=there is one party, having two wings ,to
create an illusion of "democracy" and that voting matters.
Yes, the full-court press is on to end the Special Prosecutor investigation, and maybe
even the entire law authorizing it. There appear to be no legal grounds for any of this. This
seems to be pure politics and PR manipulation attempts.
I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special
Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing
expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken
Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously
alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants.
And investigators are allowed to communicate with each other. They shouldn't have affairs
with each other, but they do. Nobody serious, in a position to say or do anything that
counts, alleges that they did anything unlawful, or anything that should be handled any other
way than the way it was handled, which is a job reassignment and possible termination.
Prosecutors are biased against the people they investigate. That's their job. I don't like
that either, but that's the deal.
I'd have a lot more respect for Sessions if he didn't blather on about the Constitution
and State's Rights and Freedom, and then cheerlead enthusiastically for a violent police
state and suspension of the rule of law for profit. But as you say, in this situation, he is
indeed correct.
And the fatuousness of the campaign to discredit Mueller, which assiduously avoids any
legitimate political argument, is a very bad sign. President Trump's attorneys are in way
over their head and they're panicking. Perhaps with good reason. But it would be better for
America if Trump could have retained any competent representation. Clearly all the good
lawyers decided they wanted no part of him as a client.
Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book
reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain,
Sessions.......
It's SO important to have all the supeanas in place before collecting any documents. I'm
in the middle of a suit and people keep trying to rush... "I'm just gonna go over there and
get a copy...."
"No, not until the lawyer says so!"
Apparently D.C. works by a different set of rules.... and they're blaming the idiots who
gave up the documents, not the ones who are, and continue, to use them illegally. Alternate
universe!
At this point Jeff Sessions is going to go down as literally the biggest fucking douche
bag in history if he doesnt do something - i mean ANYTHING - shuffle his feet / look busy ...
get the group coffee & doughnuts - i'd settle for anything really...
Here's the short list of Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary
Clinton's Crimes.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES.
I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to STAND DOWN.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the
best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad
deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 -
TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of
treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined
under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office
under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and
Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal
Prison.
If Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton would have been
elected. Many if not all of the High Crimes, Crimes & sexual perversion's we see coming
to Light never would have been known off.
The Tyrannical Lawlessness we see before our eyes never would have seen the light of
day.
And, here's the Dark Humor in this. I'm not an Agent / Esq. Attorney from The City of
London. This is common knowledge anyone could Investigate for themselves.
Americans have always been fascinated with the Law. It's the reason some of the highest
rated Tee Vee shows we're all based on Law or the presumption of it. Show such as "Law &
Order" & CSI. Christ Sakes, look at the OJ Trail ratings.
We're now a Nation of Men, not Law. Thus, to my point.
We're now absolutely, completely, open in your Face
Mueller is doing more harm to the fbis already terrible reputation every day this sham is
extended another day. When Mueller is done with this he better watch his backside is all I
can say because many people are pissed at what he has put this country through.
Curious. Whatever transpired during the transition about "contact" with "Russians" would
have been within the authority of the president-elect or his staff.
Why then would emails during transition be subject to review by Congress (or anyone else)
with respect to alleged "collusion" between the campaign and foreign government officials?
And why did not Trump just assert privilege and tell Congress to pound sand?
This is beginning to look like a snipe hunt which is being extended to provide political
eyewash to blind the public to the reality there was no "there" there.
Mueller is dirty. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not the dirt we see on the surface, it
is the dirty hidden below the cesspool of the Washington Mob.
It really is a soft coup by the FBI, CIA, DNC, among others. What a disgrace. These are
the same people who want to be taken seriously. We'll take them seriously once they become
serious. Which is likely no time soon.
All these agencies are wacked right out. What we need is one moar... the Bureau of Pissed
Off Citizens With Pitchforks. The Imperial City is out of control.
Yep...Now the Fake News has all the Trump transition emails and gossip. This entire
operation was a data mining expedition for the DNC and democrats. If you want to know a mans
motives look at who he hires and Mueller has 3/4 partisan left wing hacks working for him.
The fact they think this is ok and no big deal tells you all one needs to know and if it's
proven they have been leaked, then shut this shit show down..This country is a disgrace.
The left and right establishment of DC, the Intelligence agencies, the fake news, and the
Department of Justice have undertaken an overthrow of the constitutionally elected President
of the United States.
This is treason.
This is sedition.
People need to answer for their crimes and should be punished severely.
Justice in the USA is not a thing of the past....
No matter what the previous criminal administrations wish you to believe.
This article never did say what the unlawful conduct was in obtaining the emails. GSA has
no choice in cooperating with Mueller. He has been given broad authority.
I wish there was more objectivity on zerohedge. Mostly it is right extremist hate mongers
who are besotted with one-sided cool aid. They just decide who to hate then lambast them
without looking at all the facts. Nobody would call that smart.
No mention of Bill, Hillary, Awans, Debbie, Seth, Huma, Carlos (perv husband of Huma the
Hummer), Chelsea, and many other things too long to list. Hmmm... maybe the FBI should be
chasing real criminals. But they are merely guardians of the old guard these days.
Investigation was long ago deleted from their mandate.
The sad fact of the matter is that all those involved in this overthrow, fully understand,
their actions and behavior up to and including the spying on, the unmasking, the leaking of
classified information, the slanderous and disinformation shit out by the fake news, etc.,
would eventually be exposed.
Those complicit did not care!
They'd rather destroy the nation than relinquish their unchecked power and ill gotten
wealth.
We are on the verge of the fight of our lives.
US patriots will soon be in the field of battle with the deep state/shadow government/evil
empire.
When the dust settles, no Bush, Clinton, or Obama family member or administration team
should walk free.
This whole thing started out of nothing, or rather from a planted lie, as losers refused
to accept the outcome of the election they thought they have sufficiently gamed. Meanwhile we
have DNC testifying that they don't give a shit about democracy as they can do as they please
as a "private" organization, including sabotaging their own candidates, but yawn to that. We
have a testimony that connects DNC to the murder of Seth Rich, testimony obstructed from
proper investigation by the highest law enforcement agency in the country itself. We have
bureaucrat insurrection, from lowest clerks and judges to highest government officials, aimed
at undermining the duly elected POTUS. This is a revolution in reverse, where ruling class is
trying to overthrow the will of the people. And who is in the forefront of this fascist
takeover and trampling of democracy: exactly the agencies that suppose to protect the country
from that scenario - CIA and FBI. Finally the veil of "democracy has slipped and we can all
see the ugly truth behind it...
"... It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched. ..."
"... The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. ..."
"... Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier. ..."
"... It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump. ..."
"... Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to spy on Americans. ..."
"... There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas. ..."
"... As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier ..."
"... As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate. ..."
"... These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards. ..."
"... Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration at the start of the year. ..."
"... On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent ..."
"... Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities. ..."
"... Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what I said nine months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair. ..."
"... Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel. ..."
"... There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier. ..."
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump
Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in
July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his
information, it is now known that Steele was in contact with the FBI throughout the election
and after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's
Justice Department, a fact which was only disclosed recently. The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general
at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016, Ohr's office was just
steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban
executive order and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice
Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts
with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with
Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the
Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and
Jake Gibson, was news to some current officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after
learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general title and
moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug
enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of
information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court
which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI
has recently admitted that the Trump Dossier cannot be verified.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to
these subpoenas information about the precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the
Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked
an angry exchange between FBI Director Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a
hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and
the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid
Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that
we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been
reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and
presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to
spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI
obtaining the FISA warrants, even though it was previously disclosed that it did. This is
despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been
provided in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice
Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee
Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's
the guy who took the application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if
you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign, taking opposition
research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it
to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong
as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both
the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate
investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's
statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her misuse of her private email server to say that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now
also known to have been the person who signed the document which launched the Russiagate
investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn.
It is not clear whether this covers to the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017
during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian ambassador. However it
is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's to the FBI during this
interview which made up the case against him to which he has now pleaded guilty, and given the
indications that Flynn's interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was a
set-up intended to entrap him .
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was
Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher
Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the
Russiagate investigation supposedly after it was discovered that Strzok had been sending
anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having
an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only
came to light in July this year, when Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an
astonishing demotion for the FBI's former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was
apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true
reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague Alex Christoforou has reported
on some of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that
Strzok could have been sacked for such a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or
manipulate evidence or intelligence according to their own political preferences. FBI agents,
like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If
anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are
clearly supporters of Strzok and critics of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim
Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody
left on the Mueller team. There has to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm
it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was
apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously sacked from his previous post of deputy director
for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI however only disclosed his
sacking now five months later in response to demands for information from Congressional
investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances
surrounding it and I am sure that it is the one Congressman Jordan was thinking during his
angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Recently the FBI admitted to Congress that it has failed to verify the Trump Dossier.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is
that Strzok's credibility had become so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility
collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that it could not be
verified his credibility collapsed with it. If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is
right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the testimony to Congress
of Carter Page that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate
investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report
about supposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows
that at the start of the year the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community
– Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me here ) also all but confirms
that it was the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President
Obama in August 2016 alleging that the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump
Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence
Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the
Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided
the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the
FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly
likely that he was amongst those senior FBI and US intelligence officials who gave the Trump
Dossier credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private server
investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who
was the official within the FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to
its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind
many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration
at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign
the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance
during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump,
Hillary Clinton's opponent .
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely
understandable why Strzok, if he was the person who was ultimately responsible for this debacle
– as he almost certainly was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks
– as he likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when the utter
falsity of the Trump Dossier could no longer be denied.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was
only disclosed five months after it happened and then only in response to questions from
Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages being
spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate
investigation continues to grind on.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are
facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate
investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the
surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is
what I said nine
months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for
a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second
Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second
Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in
the Uranium One case but because the focus of any new investigation should be what happened
during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the
US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation
to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion
to investigate the Russiagate investigation – ie. the investigation headed by Mueller
– should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real
scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US
national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of
Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately
by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan are starting to
demand it is a hopeful sign.
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo
posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials"
titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat
Unchecked":
Axiomatic to the WaPohacks authors is that NATO ranks right up
there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's
doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as
evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.
Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days
later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."
History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS
(Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are,
and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so
painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton ..."
"... Most democrats are very much like their republican counterparts, they take sides, and truth be damned. They don't understand that ousting a president in a soft coup, based on lies, is undemocratic, and would have long term consequences for this country. They don't understand that a press corps who foregoes truth because they are in complicity with pushing the same agenda, ousting Trump, is also unacceptable no matter what one thinks of him. ..."
"... No president has had control of his foreign policy since Kennedy was assassinated when I was 7 years old. There is no hope of ending the forever war and gaining control of the MIC until the intelligence agencies are "broken into 1000 pieces", as JFK wanted. If it takes a buffoon like Trump to be our "Toto" and reveal "the man behind the curtain" so be it. Let us pray for peace. ..."
"... This is an excellent thread but I'm most pleased Anna by your regular mention of the Seth Rich Affair. It is kind of "the bottom line" in all of this DNC discussion and it should not disappear from mention. So again Anna, thank you ..."
"... A populist website refers to "Arkanicides" involving mysterious deaths of people inconvenient to the Clinton power structure. ..."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies. Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died
ha, ha, ha" – and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens). One does not need to be Trump apologist to
sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
Annie , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 am
Good response Anna. Most democrats are very much like their republican counterparts, they take sides, and truth be damned.
They don't understand that ousting a president in a soft coup, based on lies, is undemocratic, and would have long term consequences
for this country. They don't understand that a press corps who foregoes truth because they are in complicity with pushing the
same agenda, ousting Trump, is also unacceptable no matter what one thinks of him.
irina , December 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Exactly. Trump is not so much a 'threat to our democracy' as a test of it.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:25 am
Thank you Anna and Annie. People like tina drive me nuts. They see everything as either/or. Since we won't defend RussiaGate,
we must be Trump apologists. My hope is that this whole thing blows wide open enough that there can be a real house-cleaning and
reining in of the Intelligence Agencies.
No president has had control of his foreign policy since Kennedy was assassinated when I was 7 years old. There is no hope
of ending the forever war and gaining control of the MIC until the intelligence agencies are "broken into 1000 pieces", as JFK
wanted. If it takes a buffoon like Trump to be our "Toto" and reveal "the man behind the curtain" so be it. Let us pray for peace.
Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 9:30 am
This is an excellent thread but I'm most pleased Anna by your regular mention of the Seth Rich Affair. It is kind of "the
bottom line" in all of this DNC discussion and it should not disappear from mention. So again Anna, thank you
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm
Agreed. That is the central issue about the affair. A populist website refers to "Arkanicides" involving mysterious deaths
of people inconvenient to the Clinton power structure.
In five month is is clear how wrong Pat Buchanan was. I expected from him a much better analysis with less prejudies. But he is absolutely
right about leaks. Actually now it is clear that one of the requests from Trump team to Russian ambassador was about help Israel in UN, so this not a
Russiagate. There is also suspection that Strzok was the person who had thrown Flynn under the bus and propagated
Steele dossier within FBI. May be acting as Brennan agent inside FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1 ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted. ..."
"... Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out? ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck. ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps? ..."
"... No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians. ..."
"... There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics. ..."
"... If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular. ..."
"... If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country. ..."
For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's
campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was
"no."
As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little
campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised
dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had
long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full
Pinocchio for four days.
And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on
their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they
want it -- Russiagate.
This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of
the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.
Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And
mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as
possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.
Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S.
government designed to damage this president.
Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting
between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the
firing of Flynn.
An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that
Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to
explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled
Israeli intelligence sources and methods.
Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only
violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.
Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek.
First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from
exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.
The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.
Consider the original Russiagate offense.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this
"Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?
The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our
democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what
Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.
If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they
publish the fruits of that crime?
Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic
political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page
1?
Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge
that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic
disloyalty and criminality.
Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to
fence them once stolen and repainted.
Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of
their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what
the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much
hope.
And thus does democracy die in darkness.
Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government
who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs
not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?
Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members
of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?
Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.
People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal.
Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell
the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald
Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining
your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this
out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it
will sink in.
There is nothing there.
Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.
1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with
it.
2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on
nothing.
Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be
distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like
dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the
control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but
unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the
integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or
deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually
lying creeps?
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period
where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an
unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the
trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of
worse barbarians.
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and
their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President),
imo.
There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he
covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election"
black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest
credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true
criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to
influence US politics.
Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's
no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives
with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in
hacking.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded
zealots.
If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and
should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding
and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's)
elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics
by Israel in particular.
If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about
foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious
"influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically
including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.
That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about
foreign influence.
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for
Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that
the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper
and Mika etc etc etc
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse.
At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan. ..."
"... How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona? ..."
"... DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT. ..."
"... I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer). ..."
"... You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once. ..."
"... And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please ..."
"... I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. ..."
"... The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated". ..."
"... He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long. ..."
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government. ..."
"... I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
"... Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations. ..."
"... Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though. ..."
"... I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. ..."
"... If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media". ..."
"... He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread. ..."
"... One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years. ..."
That sure sounds a lot like the current state of the media. We have witnessed this type of hysteria ourselves in just the last
two days. First there was the Brian Ross debacle, which entailed Ross peddling the lie that Trump ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.
That "fake news" elicited an emotional orgasm from Joy Behar on The View. She was on the verge of writhing on the floor as she prematurely
celebrated what she thought would seal the impeachment of Donald Trump. Whoops. Ross had to retract that story.
... ... ...
Watergate and "Russiagate" do share a common trope. During Watergate the Washington Post was mostly a lone voice covering the
story. Washington Post publisher at the time, Kate Graham, reportedly remarked that she was worried that none of the other papers
were covering the story. And it was an important story. It exposed political corruption and abuse of power and a threat to our democracy.
How is that in common with Russiagate? The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to
destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying
to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British
spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for
the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan.
It is a shame you wanted to start the discussion with such a stupid comment. I have made no representation whatsoever about the
intelligence or lack of intelligence of Trump. I have expressed nothing regarding "my expectations" for him or his policies. I
get it. You don't like the man and want to grind a meaningless axe.
How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona?
There's truth and lies, but then there's just plain old bullshit which has nothing to do with either. He seems to throw a ton
of it around as a diversionary tactic. I understand the technique, but I can't see through the smoke screen to divine what he's
up to or who he really is. So I continue to dispassionately observe.
DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back.
By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all
therefore fair game for DJT.
Maybe a citation could be offered here, but there does not appear to be any support for the assertion made by the author of this
piece that "...the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump...".There were reports that the FBI
'considered' paying Steele to continue his work, ( a not altogether uncommon practice), yet within the more responsibly researched
reports it was also clearly stated that in the end the FBI did not in fact pay Steele anything for any work at all.
PT, I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an
extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot
over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies
are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong
to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer).
When you belong to a cult, you must suspend reason; make it subordinate to the hive mind. You lose all perspective. They believe
all kids of ridiculous notions that fail to withstand the most basic rational scrutiny; like Islam and feminism can be allies,
socialism would work if only it were applied correctly, if a man puts on a dress he has actually become a woman and that such
a person would make a good 11 series in the military, low skill/low IQ immigrants - legal or otherwise - are actually good for
the country......so of course they believe that a coup d'état is appropriate when the target is Trump. In their madness they have
convinced themselves that Trump is uniquely dangerous. He is going to destroy the world via ignoring global warming, tax cuts,
immigration reform, pushing the nuclear button just for fun; all of the above and maybe more. You know this, of course. You did
mention "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
As for the rest of the subject matter, personally, I feel that what with all that has been revealed about the FBI, CIA and
NSA, someone should be bringing the involved members of these agencies up on charges related to treason, sedition or whatever
legal terms are correct. Actually, these people should have their doors kicked down and be brought out in hand cuffs. Death sentences
should be on the table and should be applied when legally possible.
This is no more Watergate than a man in a dress is a woman.
The depths to which the govt, populace and values of this country have degenerated have never been more on display than in
this witch hunt. We are in very bad shape. The media is thoroughly scurrilous. Officials in bureaucracies are treasonous and have
no respect for the rule of law. Half of the citizens are insane and support the media and the traitors.
If someone doesn't at least just pull the plug on this "investigation", it's going to ruin what's left of this country. It
may be too late. A lot of ninnies are going to wake up to a very harsh reality.
From day one the Republicans were trying to impeach Bill Clinton by investigating every dark corner of the Clintons' past and
present until they could find something that would stick. Same thing with Trump except this time it goes far beyond the opposition
party to include elements of the government, most of the media and even leading members of his own party. Elections be damned,
we have an empire to maintain and he is seen by the establishment as too impulsive, unstable and so far uncontrollable to be allowed
to stay in power. While no threat to the sacred cows of Wall Street and Israel or even to drain the swamp they are terrified of
his unpredictability, hence the full court press unprecedented in American history to remove him from office. My very low opinion
of Trump doesn't blind me to the dangers inherent in this effort. \
PT - Isn't the point you've just made central? The issues here are far more important than the personalities?
I like what I've seen of our PM, Mrs May. Nice person, to my outsider's way of thinking. Doesn't alter the fact that I consider
her policies and philosophy to be hopeless. And since we're never going to meet her in the pub that's what counts. Would it not
be possible to separate things out in the same way with Trump? Set on one side the partisan arguments about his personality -
politics is not a TV show - and consider him on the basis of what he may or may not do or be able to do?
You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get
mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about
this? The facts are clear enough, for once.
Actually, I think he shares many of Bismark's qualities: "a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on
several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence
man. He played his parts with perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality.
... He used democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist
who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and blackened their
reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the strongest of them, and betrayed
all those ... who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends ... realized that they had helped put a demonic figure
into power.[6]"-wiki
I think, I hope, I believe, I persuade myself that all is unfolding as it should. Mueller turns up nothing but further examples
of officials pimping themselves out to foreign governments; meanwhile revelations of bias on his team; meanwhile chewing away
at the Fusion GPS thing (one of the key pillars); meanwhile investigation of the FBI. And, off stage, a slow but powerful
campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like
Brazile's book. But faster please
I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive
Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans.
I saw two pieces this morning from BBC and The New York Times:
Perhaps this is the start of a change or a recognition that the MSM's habitual crying wolf behavior is not resonating with
Main Street. I can only hope, but I stopped watching the national news long ago.
The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes
additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures.
The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation
on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for
the delay, "it was complicated".
That truly is water under the bridge, and at least must be so, if you wish to preserve
your republic. You all have the right to withhold consent and trash what you and your fathers and grandfathers have achieved.
Most will not like the outcome. But I sincerely hope that you, each and collectively, instead will choose the positive aspects
of this model:
"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed."
The ABC story had to be "clarified" given they originally reported Flynn had contacted the Russians DURING the election when in
fact it was AFTER the election. The story had consequences on the stock market:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129355-cost-fake-news-s-and-p-500
This all happened on the eve of the passage of Trump's tax cuts and it seemed timed to hurt the stock market. It may even possibly
have torpedoed the tax cuts by putting into question Trump's legal standing as president.
I detest Trump as a person but still acknowledge that he is our current President. I will continue to fight against the implementation
of his policies and work hard to to try to insure he does not win a second term. Other than that in 3 more years the American
people will have an opportunity to judge his performance and make a decision on his worthiness to continue as President. That
is as it should be.
Trump has taken some hard shots, some deserved and some not. That is the nature of our current political system. When Trump
traveled the nation proclaiming Obama was not American born and thus an illegitimate President is also an example of "all is fair
in War and politics".
He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with
the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman.
In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long.
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
is this doom-and-gloom or hope-assaulting-experience? Am guessing that the only thing he has shares with Old Otto is a preference
for the classic method of donning trousers.
OOPS! there's this (was reminded of it by the hyperventilatory "breaking news" about Blackwater/Erik Prince):
Bismarck held von Holstein in high esteem, and when the latter went to him with his plan for establishing a vast organization
of almost universal spying, the Chancellor of the new German Empire immediately grasped the advantages he could obtain from
it. ....
Von Holstein ... had one great ambition; that of knowing everything about everybody and of ruling everybody through fear
of the disclosures he could make were he at any time tempted to do so. ....
The German Foreign Office knew everything and made use of everything .... In the Prussian Intelligence Department as Holstein
organized it there was hardly a person of note or consequence in Europe about whom everything was not known, including, of
course, his weaknesses and cupboard skeletons. And this knowledge was used when necessary without any compunction or remorse.
....
His first care, whenever an individual capable at a given moment of playing a part, no matter how humble, in the great drama
attracted his attention, was to ferret out all that could be learned about him or her. With few exceptions he contrived to
lay his finger on a hidden secret. Once this preliminary step had been performed to his satisfaction, the rest was easy. The
unfortunate victim was given to understand that he would be shamed publicly at any time, unless . . . unless . . .
As this has been the SOP of Karl Rove (presumably), of Jedgar, and before that [__fill in the blanks___], the only thing unprecedented
about the Prince/Blackwater story is the disregard for omerta.
DISCLAIMER: The Princess Radziwill who published the passage on von Holstein was an opportunistic swashbucklereuse type and
[guessing] would have been so even in less horrifically interesting times.
My humble opinion on what is going on. "The Borg" are individuals whose self-interest is tied to perpetuating "business as usual"
in Washington DC. FBI agents, CIA, NSA need domestic and foreign conflict to aggrandize and justify their positions. They do not
want our national problems solved...god forbid, budgets, salaries, bonuses, future contracting and consulting jobs might be reduced
or eliminated.
Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent
and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting
Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the
Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve
some problems and reduce the importance of government.
I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death
fight with the Media.
I find the whole idea that "Deutsche Bank has branches in Russia and lends money to Russian borrowers, therefore Russians control
Deutsche Bank" idea to be comical.
I have clients who also regularly borrow money from Deutsche Bank. Are they now Russians? Are they controlled now by Russians?
Do Russians control them? What role does DB play in all this web of control?
If I have my mortgage at the same bank as a slum lord/toxic waste generator/adult bookstore owner/CIA operative, am I now his
puppet?
Asking for a friend.
Does nobody understand how banking law works? (in Germany and the US, banks are forbidden to lend to any client or client group
in an amount that would give the borrower de facto control over the operations of the bank). Of course the smarter conspiracy
theorists understand this. Any stick to beat a dog.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are
sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe
that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months
now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe.
Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves
from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations.
Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case.
IMO, we are about to though.
I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've
just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of
President Kennedy. If they can't allow the truth to come out after 54 years, they surely can't be trusted to be truthful
about today's information.
Fox News, which has been fairly reliable of late, reported last night that the FBI OIG report will be finalized and made public
sometime in the next 4-5 weeks.
If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would
have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but
I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media".
He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him
has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's
comments on this thread.
One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades.
Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years.
Still, this phenomenon existed long before Trump, The Politician, and even before Obama and his own cult. Many of these
people were able to put their expectations on hold for eight long years. Obama was a result they could at least live with temporarily
- " Just eight more years, and then they owe her. "
They had their very structures of reality built around a certain outcome, which didn't come to pass. So, the disappointment
was all the more bitter when they realized that their waiting was in vain. That's a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance unleashed
by that unimaginable (for some) occurrence of her defeat. He didn't put paid to Martin O'Malley or even Bernie Sanders. He vanquished
The Queen. That sort of thing never goes down lightly.
" As I've said before, I think Trump only ran for President for 1) ego, and 2) he knows he will have access to billions
of dollars of business deals once he leaves office, with the cachet of having been President.
You might as well assert that lions only hang out around watering holes because 1) there's water there, and 2) gazelles and
zebras have to drink water. Can you point me to one President from living memory who did not 1) run for the Office at least partially
out of ego, and 2) take advantage in his subsequent "private life" of these exact perks of having held the Office? I ask seriously,
because it seems you are pining for a nobility in presidential politics which to my recollection hasn't existed for at least three
generations. Cincinnatus, they ain't. Maybe Ike, but anyone else is a real stretch.
"... But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes, overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court. ..."
"... Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized - the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case. ..."
top lieutenant
to Robert S. Mueller III on the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible
links to the Trump campaign. Significantly, Mr. Weissmann is an expert in converting defendants into collaborators - with either
tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective.
If Mr. Mueller is the stern-eyed public face of the investigation, Mr. Weissmann, 59, is its pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit
bull with two Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies that includes
professional killers and white-collar criminals.
... ... ...
But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia
members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes,
overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court.
...Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized -
the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case.
"There's a name," the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh warned listeners last week, recapping the "intimidating technique"
afoot. "Weissmann."
I acknowledge what you are saying. However, I have learned that when one is in the midst of a pessimistic scenario, one tends
to develop tunnel vision and assume that the future will be like the present, only worse. Though I despise psychology as a science,
this is a very psychological phenomenon. Granting what you say about Trump and the false optimism he generated, I voted for him
not because I hated Trump less, but that I hated Hillary more.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding, in spite of all this, I do have a certain optimism about the American people, as a rayon de
lumičre in a gloomy prospect.
keep the blinders on, even better yet wear the virtual reality goggles of MAGA while the country is living off a never ending
fraud.
Every part of the us government is a fraud, the money is a fraud, wall street is a fraud, 99% of the food you eat is kosher
fraud and you pension is fraud as the money is not there to allow you to collect your pension yet most people are paying dearly
for their pension and the money goes to either israel or the profiteers of the war machine.
They are toast. The leaks are not going to stop. Once the baby boom generation dies off completely the next generations will
clean up their mess. The baby boom can't see past their own prosperity. But everyone else is ready for reform.
(trying to throw a little optimism into the mix)
Think about it.. when you look at the electoral map by county HRC was thoroughly crushed. Is DJT a SomaSalesMan aka Mega Psyop..
who the fuck knows. The awakening is happen Chinese water torture style.
This is a lot like being a Gold perma Bull. We want to come into the forums every day and write about how hopeless the situation
is (a lot like what I do here everyday).
Just remember this.. Even Mao's wife had to stand trial for crimes against the populace. In 20 years the babyboomers will be
out of the way and we can get onto bigger and better things.
the biggest problems come from the millennial who grew up with bullshit, baby boomers lived threw a lot of american bullshit
and they are the ones like PCR are warning the youngs that america's days are numbered . even Deagel.com predict that the us population
in 2025 will dwindle from 325 million to only 55 millions, where do you think the 275 million will go? nuclear war will take care
of them.
the corruption is so great that every single new weapon does not work and all these weapons are built at a great cost. The
bulk of the left activists are millennials , the same with the super left, yet on the right the millennials are busy filing their
nails, surfing and buying bitcoin for a quick profit.
I am Canadian, I am an outsider and see clearly as I am not part of the system, I see a country where the leaders convinced
the population that they are exceptional but the people took it as a compliment, it was meant to fool them into a sense of being
above the rest of the world, yet most americans do not know the capital of florida, california, mississippi, alabama yet they
are in their own country.
This exceptionalism is preventing them from understanding the danger they are in.
For the first time I see a consensus on zerohedge that PCR is 100% right and the posters are worried what will become of america
if israel is left with a huge hold on all us presidents and on the political infrastructure of the us and they agree with PCR
on the list of propaganda the us have been telling the citizens to keep them distracted from knowing that their days are numbered
when the Russians might attack thinking america wants to annihilate them.
We are in the late stages of Pax Judaica. They, through their money magic,usury,fiat printing,and the bought/paid for/bribed/blackmailed
sycophants,rule almost the whole world.The West entirely.
They have push so much,on all aspects of the society,that the recoil is going to be devastating.We started seeing this with
the Jerusalem f*ck up.
US can not be saved at this point. It is at the Event Horizon already. I don't know what will be left of it: a few 4th world
small countries ,where warlords kill each other? Americans love violence.
I absolutely sure IS...RA...EL is NOT going to survive. Neither Saudi Barbaria. Especially after this last blunder.
Will they go into the dustbin of history gracefully,without destroying the whole world in the process?
I don't think so,they are psychopaths.They do not like to lose or to be exposed for what they really are.
PCR makes a valid point. The Russians are patient ,balanced, intelligent people,but if they sense they are dealing with irrational
ones ,they will not take a chance. The Russians have already said that US is not agreement capable, a great insult in their view.
In America everybody has their labels (businessman, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican) so they can all fight with each other
better. The country is so Balkanized that cannot function as a whole any more. I guess that was the plan all along.
Peace and truth are not welcome at the Whitehouse which should be painted BLOOD RED. Politicians are a greedy bloodthirsty
criminals, That includes Trump. If you want to save the world from WW3 which we are watching incubate. ALL current crop of politicians
have to be thrown out of government. YOU NEED A BLOODY REVOLUTION and throw these criminals into maximum security with the killers
and molestors to do as they wish with them.
Without public revolt we'll just keep seeing, hearing and swallowing fake news after fake news brain wash and send our children
to kill the innocent in WAR after WAR.
Don't forget the biggest lie. Even bigger than 9/11. That in the mid 2000s millions of deadbeats all decided to buy houses
that they could not afford. What a joke of a country. Land of the fee. Home of the Slave.
"What Mueller is doing is so corrupt that he really should be arrested and renditioned to Egypt." Best line of the whole piece.
Love it. We are not, however, "Walking Into Armageddon" Rather, we are "Slouching into the Apocolypse"
Trump handing Jerusalem to israel is just the first step in setting up the rise of Israel and the fall of America. It is a
symbolic transfer of power. All is left is world war 3 and the financial system collapse.
PCR is way off this time. Flynn is acting as bait, and the swamp critters went for it. Trump and Bannon are playing the ol'
rope-a-dope rather well. After the Dems and Deep Staters wear themselves out throwing all of these ineffective punches they will
take them out.
You might be on to something...as the Dems and Deep State reveal themselves for what they really are, it makes it easier for
Trump to go in for the kill....! They are getting more and more careless and their corruption and stupidity revealed more and
more each day. I hope Trump be able to pave the way to cleaning up America and getting it back on its feet....we will see...!
"THE" controllers of the puppet politicans, bankers and world leaders "WANT YOU TO LIVE IN FEAR." All the reasons stated by
PCR are valid but not one of them is a reason to go out and get drunk tomorrow. Either you believe in your own fate and the actions
which control the fate which you harvest "OR YOU DON'T."
Why would I worry about things I have zero control over, especially when I "KNOW" "THEY" live off of that fear? I will live
every moment of my life in the joy and happiness which is this blessing to be alive "AND" will live in fear of no one. If you
live your life this way they lose and you get to appreciate a gift which is greater then any material object on the planet.
The worse which they can do when you decide to refuse to live in fear of "THEM" is to take your life which they have no power
to do either.. Put up your middle finger to all of them, smile and move on and enjoy what time you have here to make it the best
you can do.
Choose not to live in fear of them..
We all fear death and question our place in the universe. The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote
for the emptiness of existence. ... Ernest Hemingway
Two interesting pieces of news out of moonofalabama.org
First b says the real buyer of the fake $450M fake DaVinci is MbS, the KSA crown prince. Second, MbS just fired his Zino-friendly,
Jared-friendly foreign minister.
The rumors early on were that Flynn knew who all the pedophiles were in Washington, wanted to go after them "AND" would not
back down. Trump's VP was included on that list and played a part in the decision to move him out of the public eye and into the
position he currently occupies behind the scenes.
Interestingly enough it was supposedly this stupid explanation of him not telling Pence about his meeting with the Russian
Ambassador which was the excuse as to why he had to be removed. On face value, think about how ridiculous this is. A decorated
General who answers to the President withheld information on a meeting which is fairly typical military procedure.
"IT'S CALLED THE NEED TO KNOW." HELLO....
Trump could have simply stated that Flynn was not under orders from Pence and was acting under a protocol common to members
within the Military but not common to politicians. If Pence wanted to know anything about what people within my Administration
are doing he is always welcome to discuss it with me. PERIOD...
THE ENTIRE EXCUSE IS TOTAL BS AND THE WEAKNESS OF THAT EXCUSE GIVES ME SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGIONAL RUMORS WERE
ACCURATE.
The Fascist Tom Cotton with his hair on fire leading the charge. Metaphorically leading the charge to our own destruction.
He would never get himself involved in any genuine battle charge. Russia is not my enemy or adversary.
Has Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea ever done any physical harm to the USA ? No ... How about the reverse
? Mmm, it appears the only ones that have attacked the USA are Saudi Arabia and Israel. But America does not attack them, instead
it only attacks the countries that have never attacked the USA.
Is that wierd or what ?, it's almost as if there is another agenda at play.
You mean the Islam that allows grandads to marry and abuse 10 year olds. Husbands to beat up their wives, hang gay teenage
boys off cranes in public squares. Whip 12 year old girls in public for wearing western tight jeans ( underneath their hijab may
I add). Satan would approve of this sadistic protocol.
it's amazing to see so much naivety here. People seems to believe that America/Russia are bad/good. But people it's not just
imperialism anymore it's globalism. Therefore it's not about interests of countries but rather the ones of oligarchs. And oligarchs
interests are international, so why would they be interested in Armageddon? Earth belong to them, why would they want to damage
their wealth so much? i think we'll see busyness as usual - small wars, removing obstacles for transnationals, concentration of
wealth and power and social engineering on global scale.
Naive, ha ha! Take a look at Libya, the War Crimes & Genocide, overseen by the US & Vassals and talk about Good/Bad, NO SON,
we're talking Class A EVIL here, and in the other Regime Change Neocon Playbook. How many Foreign Bases/Entanglements are Russia
involved in, outside of Russia? In their Only ME base/port in Syria the US tried to fuck them over. Now Russia has half a dozen
strategic Bases ( including a meeting of minds with Egypt, Qatar, Libya, Turkey, Sudan ) to eliminate DAESH/al-CIAd'uh (US Constructs).
Lastly, Only through Threat and Intimidation can the US keep these Vassals on board. Have you not noticed how the Geopolitical
Landmark is changing with Sovereigns flocking far and wide to Moscow, for an ALTERNATIVE to the Vassal Prisoner Status offered
up by Vichy DC.
Naive Son? Z/Hedgers will call out Russia if they deviate from the Path of Righteousness.
No Russia didn't displace, maim, murder, tens of millions of citizens in the ME, VICHY DC did.
I read somewhere that the Ukrainian Army has changed its rule book to allow soldiers to wear beards. The inference from this
is that those ISIS members rescued by the Americans are being shipped to Ukraine to fight with the Nazis against those in the
East who object to Kiev's desire to genocide ethnic Russians. It would appear that, not content with arming Nazis and putting
them in Ukraine's Government, the US is now putting an armed ISIS into Eastern Europe. Does anybody have more detail?
Airlifting them from Der el Zor ( and inevitable destruction at the hands of Syrian/Hezbollah Bravehearts ) onto the demarcation
line in the Donbass? Good luck with that Chestnut! What are the Jihadi's wearing, 3 SETS OF THERMALS? Let's put it this way, no
matter how many Jihadi proxy scum/Advisers they airlift into Donbass there will be 10 times more FOREIGN FREEDOM-FIGHTERS (ok
mainly Russian, but from Everywhere ) ready to join that gig, me included.
How convenient that Trump gets to play the Good Guy, supposedly fingers tied at every turn by Deep State, preventing him from
reaching out.
There's not a shred of evidence that he's intervened to mend relations with Russia and if there is can someone shed light on
this?
First up he has a filthy Neocon POS in Nikki Haley in the UN, the Only one on the Security Council who's a War Hawk (including
the Palestinian fiasco ).
Did he intervene in the ILLEGAL eviction of Russian Diplomatic Quarters? Has he worked diligently with China & Russia to resolve
DPRK or contributed to the Neocon war-drum beat with more bluster? Has he increased or defused tension in the ME by withdrawing
US Troops or has he added to Obama's clandestine proxy jihadi recruitment programme by sending moar ADVISERS?
They say Tillerson's on his way out, to be replaced by a Neocon war-hawk in Mike Pompeo who's current charge of al-CIAd'uh
covert operations is a continuation of the Obama failings.
Unlike Obama ( one of his few credits in 8 years ) Trump's Encouraging Netanyahu's Deviancy?
I've read over at the Saker/Other that behind the scenes Vichy DC could step up the supply of WMD's/Advisers to Kiev.
The US Coalition Forces in Syria (minus the US, lol), like their Iraqi counterparts (the Kurds in the main ) are at least talking
with Russia/Government to thwart, long-term US Military Bases on Syrian soil. Obviously the US is unhappy about this with their
Partition ambitions.
Pope John Paul II, Gorbachev, and Reagan, together, ended the Cold War. HW Bush is the architect on how the USA kept its military
industrial complex intact. The USA no longer had an existential threat, and no longer a reason to maintain a multiple tens of
billions annual defense budget. So HW Bush picked an enemy and started a global war, that continues to this day. The British military
map makers, redrew much of the middle east, after WWI.
The state of Israel was already in the works, long before the story of the holocaust, some 20 years later. Anyway, Sadaam Hussein,
leader of Iraq, and US ally, spoke to the Bush administration about Kuwait; and taking back for Iraq, what Sadaam believed the
British map makers took away in 1917. Saddam was fooled, and the Bush administration had a reason to keep the military industrial
complex intact. The globalism/new world order, that US and EU government officials speak of, is simply another way of saying that
no one has any civil liberties and everyone is being monitored.
This dangerous game was effective and working for quite a while. A great deal of wealth and power transferred to a select few.
The strategy went sideways when Mr Putin said enough is enough, in roughly 2011.
Now, freedom fighters have joined Mr Putin, such as Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Barrett Brown, Manning, Glenn Greenwald,
Sarah Carter,and many other, to restore freedom and honor back to the people of the world by shining light on all of the corruption.
It will take Trump and Sessions some time to restore trust and to root out the corruption.
The bottom line is that there are good people out there, who will never let this criminal behavior and corruption to be hidden
from the unwashed masses.
America is just looking for an excuse to send their young kids to war to get shot to pieces and get mentally fucked up so the
drug industry can profit, the war industry can profit, the banks can profit...
"... The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent; among Hillary Clinton voters, 34 percent. ..."
"... "Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed. ..."
"... 63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 54 percent overall say "independent counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President Trump 's aides "harsher treatment" during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
Despite the intricacies of the Russian collusion investigation, voters have some clear
opinions about the situation, according to a wide-ranging Harvard Center for American Political
Studies-Harris survey -- which weighs in at 204 pages. It is a long poll, and a telling one: A
majority of American voters say special counsel Robert Mueller has a "conflict of
interest" in the investigation.
The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of
interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of
Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who
voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent;
among Hillary
Clinton voters, 34 percent.
Has the investigation itself revealed any evidence of collusion? Thirty eight percent of the
voters overall said that no evidence of such activities had been found, 35 percent said there
was evidence, while 27 percent did not know the answer. Three fourths of the respondents also
believe that "the special counsel is trying to make a case for obstruction of justice against
the president," the poll found. More numbers in the Poll du Jour at column's end.
PAGING MR. SESSIONS
Just a comment from Rep. Matt Gaetz -- Florida Republican and a member of the House
Judiciary Committee -- made during a discussion with Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade . The
pair were discussing the aforementioned investigation into potential "Russia collusion" and the
Trump campaign.
"Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do
his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased
people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If
he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the
issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed.
... ... ...
POLL DU JOUR
76 percent of U.S. voters think the "special counsel" in the Russia investigation is trying
to find collusion between President Trump and Russian officials; 69
percent of Republicans, 76 percent of independents and 83 percent of Democrats agree.
63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton
email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74
percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree.
54 percent overall say "independent counsel
Robert Mueller has conflicts of
interest as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40
percent of Democrats agree.
36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President
Trump 's aides "harsher treatment"
during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56
percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree.
25 percent say the special counsel does not think a charge of obstruction of justice in the
investigation is possible; 31 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of independents and 19 percent
of Democrats agree.
Source: A Harvard CAPS-Harris survey of 1,995 registered U.S. voters conducted between Dec.
8-11.
Fusion GPs is an interesting part of the whole puzzle.
Notable quotes:
"... On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State Department during the Obama administration. ..."
"... "It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now. We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues." ..."
On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's
ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State
Department during the Obama administration.
Jordan, appearing on "Fox & Friends," said the appointment of a special prosecutor to
investigate the full breadth of Clinton's potentially illegal activities "needs to happen."
"It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton
investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now.
We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit
because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways
Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues."
"But the biggest part, I do believe, is the dossier," Jordan stressed. "The fact, as I said
yesterday, the fact that a major political party can finance this dossier at the same time it
looks like Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was being paid by the FBI."
"So are they complicit in putting together this dossier, which was National Enquirer
baloney, turning it into an intelligence document, getting a warrant, and spying on Americans?
If that happened in this great country, that is just so wrong. That's why it warrants a special
examination of this whole issue."
Asked by Ainsley Earhardt why the Department of Justice hasn't asked for a special counsel
yet, Jordan said he thinks it's because "some of the career people at the Justice Department
just don't want to go there." Jordan also said that Attorney General Sessions, who is "a good
man," may feel compromised by his recusal from some aspects of the Russia investigation and
therefore unwilling to push hard against those who don't want to go after Clinton.
On Tuesday, the attorney general testified before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked
by Rep. Jordan if he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton, Sessions
demurred.
"... James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. ..."
"... We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. ..."
"... Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities. ..."
"... Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly was investigating Hilary's infamous server--he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency,
when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help.
The two men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was
incapacitated in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with
hubris and almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang,
having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as
the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick
as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including
covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for
the Clintons, no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times,
Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebellius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times
between 1991 and 2017.
Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would
be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases
have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998's case Hamburg. V. Clinton.
Her loyalties are clearly with the entities that make up the Deep State, as are her husbands.
They are a DC Globalist Power Couple, and they mean to destroy Donald Trump under the bidding of their Globalist Masters. Rod
Rosenstein should not have any position in President Trump's administration, let alone one with so much power to harm the Office
of the Presidency.
Mueller is also a Deep State lackey, even acting as delivery boy for Hillary's State Department, hand transporting ten grams of
highly enriched uranium under the auspices of counter-terror. It must only be coincidence that this happened at the same time as
Hillary and her henchman John Podesta were nurturing the Uranium One deal that would see Russia take control over 20% of America's
proven uranium reserves. Shortly after the Russia uranium deal closed, the Clinton Foundation was showered with many millions of
dollars from Russian donors.
Comey, Rosenstein, and their patron Mueller are truly the Three Amigos of the Deep State. Joined long ago in mutual regard, owing
allegiance only to each other and the enshrined bureaucracy that created them. As their actions show, they desire to thwart the will
of the people and depose the duly elected President of the United States of America by using all the powers at their disposal.
"... "Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock." ..."
"... In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be retained.
..."
"... Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. ..."
"... In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking to
the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died anyway
that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of presidential
elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less restraint than
even Hoover could. ..."
This Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election | The NationThis Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election Throughout his career,
J. Edgar Hoover used the bureau to meddle in presidential politics and secure his own power. By
Jeff Kisseloff October 31, 2016
Even the FBI's history of insinuating itself into presidential campaigns, this latest October surprise shouldn't have been any
surprise at all.
As early as 1919, Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, the progressive A. Mitchell Palmer, deployed bureau agents in an eponymous
operation to round up and deport alleged radical immigrants. The
Palmer Raids were ostensibly a response to a series of bombings,
but it became apparent that Palmer had had something more in mind when he threw his hat into the ring for the 1920 Democratic presidential
nomination and ran on a proto-Trumpian agenda of "undiluted Americanism." Palmer didn't get past the first ballot, however, and ultimately
the raids' most lasting impact was Palmer's decision to have his young assistant administer the arrests. The official, whose own
youthful ambition earned him the nickname "Speed," was 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover.
Following the Teapot Dome scandal, the seemingly incorruptible Hoover was appointed to head the bureau. If money didn't tempt
Hoover, power did. While he managed to survive the Coolidge and Hoover administrations, Roosevelt nearly brought Hoover's career
to a premature halt. After his election, FDR announced that Montana Senator Thomas J. Walsh, a fierce opponent of the Palmer raids,
would be his attorney general. Walsh told friends that Hoover would be replaced. But that month, Walsh married a Cuban woman in Havana.
After flying back to Florida, the couple boarded a train to Washington. While passing through North Carolina, Walsh's wife found
him on the floor, dead, the apparent victim of too much honeymooning.
Homer Cummings, who replaced Walsh, retained Hoover. The director quickly realized the way to keep his job was to make himself
indispensable to FDR. Wiretapping was a relatively new investigative tool, and as it turned out Roosevelt was eager to use it against
his political opponents on the left and right. Up for reelection in 1936, he had Hoover eavesdrop on the leftist members of the Newspaper
Guild and other suspected members of the Communist Party, despite the party's attempt to establish a "popular front."
Then, as FDR began to gear up for a third term, Hoover went after Father Charles E. Coughlin, the ultraconservative radio priest
who was a major thorn in Roosevelt's side. In January 1940, 17 members of Coughlin's pro-Hitler Christian Front were arrested by
the FBI, charged with plotting to kill several congressmen. Whether the charges were accurate or not, the arrests finished Coughlin
as an influential political figure.
That same year, the bureau sought to quash the opposition of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade veterans with raids on its offices. But
it was in 1948 that Hoover unleashed the FBI for the first time to further his own career. Like everyone who was not a member of
the Truman family, Hoover assumed that Thomas Dewey would be the next president. Hoover's former assistant William Sullivan recalled
that Hoover believed if he used the bureau's resources on behalf of the Dewey campaign, he would be named attorney General as a stepping
stone to the Supreme Court and eventually to becoming Chief Justice.
"Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock."
At the same time, the bureau was intensely involved in disrupting Henry Wallace's third-party campaign. Wallace had been a target
of the FBI when he was still vice president, but in 1948, the bureau stepped up its activities by surveilling and intimidating Wallace
staffers and supporters and feeding negative information about Wallace to the press and the Truman campaign, which cooperated with
the bureau's efforts. Truman's victory marked an end to Hoover's ambitions. The 1952 election and the subsequent races found the
director again in survival mode by making himself useful to his favored candidates.
While most people remember the 1952 campaign for Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech, the FBI's efforts to slander Adlai Stevenson
(perhaps for personal, as well as political reasons) as a closeted homosexual gets less attention. According to Hoover's biographer,
Curt Gentry, the director was the source of rumors that Stevenson had once been arrested on morals charges. The same rumors were
spread in 1956, but only Walter Winchell took the bait, notoriously declaring that a vote for Stevenson was a vote for Christine
Jorgensen.
In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be
retained.
Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. As a last-ditch effort to help the
troubled Hubert Humphrey campaign, Johnson announced the resumption of peace talks with North Vietnam. He soon learned, however,
that South Vietnam's president Nguyen Van Thieu was sabotaging the effort, convinced he could get a better deal if Nixon won.
Madame Anna Chennault, a GOP leader and a close friend of South Vietnam's ambassador Bui Diem, was the person whispering in Thieu's
ear. Gentry writes that when information turned up that she was communicating to Nixon through Spiro Agnew, Johnson thought he had
clinched the election for Humphrey, but Agnew's phone records just happened to turn up missing. The investigation was closed and
Nixon went on to a narrow victory.
In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking
to the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died
anyway that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of
presidential elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less
restraint than even Hoover could.
In 1948, Henry Wallace grasped the larger issues stemming from the FBI's actions, declaring, "We Americans have far more to fear
from those actions which are intended to suppress political freedom than from the teaching of ideas with which we are in disagreement."
If Hoover were alive today he'd be 121 years old and undoubtedly still running the FBI. Considering Comey's actions, perhaps a
séance would be in order to see if he still is.
"... A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. ..."
A previous version of
Monday's story by Maggie Haberman, titled "Trump's Deflections and Denials on Russia
Frustrate Even His Allies," made reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that have
supposedly all concurred in the assessment of Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential
race.
Despite the mainstream media and the political left making
constant reference for months to the "17 intelligence agencies" agreeing on Russia's
actions during the campaign, this has repeatedly been debunked. The single released report on the matter
from the American intelligence community was produced by only three intelligence agencies
– the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and
the National Security Agency (NSA).
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
confirmed in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the "17 agencies"
line was fake news. While there are 17 American intelligence agencies and none, to his
knowledge, objected to the CIA/FBI/NSA report, none of the other 14 agencies have published any
independent confirmation of its claims.
The phrase "17 intelligence agencies" seems to have entered the public discourse after
Hillary Clinton used it in her second debate with Trump. Despite its demonstrable inaccuracy,
it continues to feature in articles from across the mainstream media. For example, an
Associated
Press wire story that Breitbart News carried last week uncritically uses the 17-agency
figure.
For its part, the New York Times felt compelled to issue a correction after using
the same phrase. The following was added below Haberman's article:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said
Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment
was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the
American intelligence community.
Note: The figure of four agencies is reached by including Clapper's office in addition to
the three agencies that compiled the published report.
"... Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote up a correction, that is. ..."
Trump criticizes media over alleged mind-meld of '17 intelligence agencies' over Russia
meddling - The Washington Post As a matter of timing, it was odd: Last week, the New York Times
attached a lumpy correction to a story about the political dynamics of President Trump's
various proclamations on
Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . The story highlighted the president's
various "asterisks, wisecracks, caveats or obfuscation" about Russian cyberattacks, and made a
reference to the consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" about Russian interference.
Here's the text:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about
Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was
made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National
Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American
intelligence community.
News organizations had been repeating that "17 intelligence agencies" line for months and
months, with no corrections in sight. Why was the New York Times issuing a correction all of a
sudden? And why did the Associated Press
add a clarification one day later? Who asked for it? The New York Times declined to comment
beyond the correction. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence also declined to
comment on the record.
Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much
exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote
up a correction, that is.
"... For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." ..."
"... The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though substantial evidence pointed to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks. ..."
"... The Associated Press followed ..."
"... "In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment." ..."
For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly
dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." The firestorm first began when Hillary
Clinton – darling of the U.S. intelligence community, the mainstream press, and Wall
Street – failed to win the electoral contests that the media had been convinced was her
for the taking.
The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and
accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the
Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign
became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her
campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though
substantial evidence pointed
to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks.
Once the Russian hacker narrative became established, the media began working overtime to
connect Trump and his campaign to Russia – creating the illusion of a "bromance" between
Trump and Putin despite the fact that the two had never met. Much of the evidence
for the so-called "bromance" centered around Trump stating during the campaign that
he wanted to improve U.S.-Russia ties, which drastically deteriorated under the Obama
administration, and wanted to work with the Russians to defeat Daesh (ISIS).
The bromance and the campaign collusion narrative have been continuously and intensely
pushed by several high-ranking politicians of the Democratic Party. In fact, the push has been
so intense that it
has now backfired for Democrats.
As a result, it has since
become a "crime" in the eyes of the mainstream media for any U.S. politician to interact or
to have previously interacted with any Russian official. It has also meant that defending
Russia's government or its actions could quickly turn you into
the laughingstock of the mainstream press
But some of the most prestigious news organizations in the country have been forced to
retract a major claim that has stood at the center of the Russia hacking media frenzy:
namely that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump." Last week, both the New
York Times and The Associated
Press were forced to retract the claim from several of their articles, as the
oft-repeated statement has been proven to be false.
The New York Times was first,
adding a correction to a June 25th article which stated:
"A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made
by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security
Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence
community."
"In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press
reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected
by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.
Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment."
One of the most enduring data points of the whole Trump-colluded-with-Russia
fantasy was the idea that there was a unanimity among US intelligence agencies that a) the
Russians had intervened in some way, and b) that intervention was calculated to help Trump. The
collusion conspiracy theorists have thrown on a third layer which is that members of Trump's
campaign were working hand-in-glove with the Russians to do something nefarious. What? Well, we
don't know.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed
the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US
political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like
DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the
Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of
Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US
election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar
tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion
there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's
senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
The statement is tailored narrowly and only speaks to encouraging states to seek federal
help in securing their voting systems (though, given the federal government's track record in
keeping stuff secure, I'm not sure that's a great idea.)
A week later, in the final Clinton-Trump debate, Clinton made this claim
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
"... How about Hillary telling her banker friends in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform" had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that? ..."
"... Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and confessed to being "really good" at killing people. ..."
"... We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State". ..."
"... Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues, Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation" ..."
Wow, you really have drunk the kool-aid! Didn't you read any of the leaked emails?
How about Hillary telling her banker friends
in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform"
had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that?
And Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and
confessed to being "really good" at killing people.
The only thing you are right about is our Democracy is broken (in fact, it
never existed in the USA). Willful blindness will not make us "Stronger Together", only dismantling the "Deep State" will do that.
We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued
control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State".
turk 151 , December 14, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues,
Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation"
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did.
A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials
had in mind.
"... The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative. ..."
"... The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!" ..."
The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on
Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports
Robert Parry.
If Russia-gate is the massive scandal that we are told it is by so many Important People --
across the U.S. mainstream media and the political world -- why do its proponents have to
resort to lies and exaggerations to maintain the pillars supporting the narrative?
A new example on Thursday was The New York Times' statement
that a Russian agency "spent $100,000 on [Facebook's] platform to influence the United States
presidential election last year" – when the Times knows that statement is not true.
According to Facebook, only 44 percent of that amount appeared before the U.S.
presidential election in 2016 (i.e., $44,000) and few of those ads addressed the actual
election. And, we know that the Times is aware of the truth because it was acknowledged in a
Times article in early October.
As part of that article, Times correspondents Mike Isaac and Scott Shane reported
that the ads also covered a wide range of other topics: "There was even a Facebook group for
animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid
ads."
As nefarious as the Times may think it is for Russians to promote a Facebook page about
"adorable puppies," the absurdity
of that concern – and the dishonesty of the Times then "forgetting" what it itself
reported just two months ago about the timing and contents of these "Russian-linked ads"
– tells you a great deal about Russia-gate.
On Thursday, the Times chose to distort what it already knew to be true presumably because
it didn't want to make the $100,000 ad buy (which is not a particularly large sum) look even
smaller and less significant by acknowledging the pre-election total was less than half that
modest amount – and even that total had little to do with the election.
Why would the Times lie? Because to tell the truth would undercut the narrative of evil
Russians defeating Hillary Clinton and putting Donald Trump in the White House – the core
narrative of Russia-gate.
Another relevant fact is that Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its
first two searches and only detected the $100,000 after a personal visit from Sen. Mark Warner,
D-Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on
Internet regulation.
In other words, Facebook's corporate executives dredged up something to appease Warner. That
way, Warner and the Democrats could blame Russia for the Trump presidency, sparing further
criticism of Clinton's dreadful campaign (in which she labeled half of Trump's voters
"deplorables") and her neo-liberal economic policies (and neo-conservative foreign policies)
that have alienated much of America's working class as well as many progressives.
Leaving Out Context
The Times also might have put the $100,000 in "Russian-linked" ads over a two-year period in
the context of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue, but the Times didn't do that –
apparently because it would make even the full $100,000 look like a pittance.
Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt
with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative.
Ironically, the Times' latest false depiction of the $100,000 in ads as designed "to
influence" the 2016 election appeared in an
article about Facebook determining that other Russian-linked ads, which supposedly had a
powerful effect on Great Britain's Brexit vote, totaled just three ads at the cost of 97 cents.
(That is not a misprint.)
According to Facebook, the three ads, which focused on immigration, were viewed some 200
times by Britons over four days in May 2016. Of course, the response from British
parliamentarians who wanted to blame the Brexit vote on Moscow was to assert that Facebook must
have missed something. It couldn't be that many Britons had lost faith in the promise of the
European Union for their own reasons.
We have seen a similar pattern with allegations about Russian interference in German and
French elections, with the initial accusations being widely touted but not so much the later
conclusions by serious investigations knocking down the claims. [See, for instance,
Consortiumnews.com's " German
Intel Clears Russia on Interference. "]
The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!"
These days in Official Washington, it has become almost forbidden to ask for actual evidence
that would prove the original claim that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails, even though the
accusation came from what President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
acknowledged were "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
These "hand-picked" analysts produced the
evidence-lite Jan. 6 "assessment" about Russia "hacking" the emails and slipping them to
WikiLeaks – a scenario denied by both WikiLeaks and Russia.
When that "assessment" was released almost a year ago, even the Times' Scott Shane noticed
the lack of proof,
writing : "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most
eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to
'trust us.'"
But the Times soon "forgot" what Shane had inconveniently noted and began reporting the
Russian "hacking" as accepted wisdom.
The 17-Agencies Canard
Whenever scattered expressions of skepticism arose from a few analysts or non-mainstream
media, the doubts were beaten back by the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies"
concurred in the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to
hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And what kind of nut would doubt the collective
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies!
Though the 17-agency canard was never true, it served an important purpose in establishing
the Russia-gate groupthink. Wielding the "all 17 intelligence agencies" club, the U.S.
mainstream media pounded politicians and policymakers into line, making any remaining skeptics
seem more out of step and crazy.
So, in May 2017, when Clapper (along with former CIA Director John Brennan) admitted in
congressional testimony that it wasn't true that all 17 agencies concurred in the Russian
hacking conclusion, those statements received very little attention in the mainstream
media.
The New York Times among other major news outlets just continued asserting the 17-agency
falsehood until the Times was finally pressured to correct its
lie in late June , but that only led to the Times shifting to slightly different but still
misleading wording, citing a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies without mentioning a
number or by simply stating the unproven hacking claim as flat fact.
Even efforts to test the Russian-hack claims through science were ignored or ridiculed. When
former NSA technical director William Binney conducted
experiments that showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not
have occurred over the Internet but matched what was possible for a USB-connected thumb drive
-- an indication that a Democratic insider likely downloaded the emails and thus that there was
no "hack" -- Binney was mocked as a "conspiracy theorist."
Even with the new disclosures
about deep-seated anti-Trump bias in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI
officials who played important early roles in the Russia-gate investigation, there is no
indication that Official Washington is willing to go back to the beginning and see how the
Russia-gate story might have been deceptively spun.
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did. A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want
to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.
But the Times and other big promoters of Russia-gate continue to dismiss doubters as
delusional or as covering up for Russia and/or Trump. By this point – more than a year
into this investigation – too many Important People have bought into the Russia-gate
narrative to consider the possibility that there may be little or nothing there, or even worse,
that it is the "insurance policy" that Strzok envisioned.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time. Non-government actors
in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election
and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging
when it comes to what we read and hear.
ranney , December 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Lately I've heard on PBS and other news shows that Russia "invaded Ukraine" and also
attacked Crimea and essentially stole the island back to Russia. I forget the exact words used
about Crimea but that was the gist. I have heard several times people on PBS using the the
words Russia "invaded Ukraine" to describe what happened there. Like the N.Y.T. PBS is supposed
to be the go to place for unbiased news and now they are blatantly lying to the public –
and have been lying certainly as far back as 2014, if not before.
It's very discouraging to know that there are so few places where one can go to get actual
facts. Consortium is one and, surprisingly RT is often another – at least RT tells us
about stuff going on in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the MSM. Boy! talk
about being an insular country! America is the most isolated country in the world when it comes
to knowledge about other lands. We go on about how narcissistic Trump is, but the fact is that
our whole government and our MSM is totally narcissistic and has been for quite a while –
all we think about is us- and our government is willing to kill and lay waste anyone or any
country that doesn't do exactly what we want, even when what we want is disasterous for not
only other countries, but also disasterous for our own country. We are so narcissistic that we
can't see it.
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Well ranney, while I look at and read this site regularly, I gotta say that Trump is merely
a doppelgänger for our country's collective psyche. This country is off the rails in every
way possible. Yes, that includes those bad apples of the deep state AND compliant hamster
citizens who vote and are currently scurrying about on the wheel of capitalism in pursuit of
the Christmas Machine. All the hand wringing done on this web-site ain't gonna change any of
it.
Mr. Parry would do everyone justice by taking his excellent skills and expanding his writing
repertoire beyond Russia-gate. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's up with him that he
repeatedly beats the same old sorry drum- like the MSM- only on the opposite side. It's getting
tiresome. How about proposing solutions to what ails us?
Sorry to ruin everyone's party.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm
"major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump-Russia story,
always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of
incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be
corrected, walked back, or retracted -- often long after the initial false claims spread, and
where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial
false stories are lavished:
– Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter
(Wash Post)
– An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin
agents (Wash Post)
– WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
– A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
– RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
– Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
– Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets,
echoing Homeland Security)
– Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment
fund under investigation (CNN) [ ]
"But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and
consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility
for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can't mean hiding behind
P.R. and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.
"At minimum, these networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and CBS -- have to either identify who purposely
fed them this blatantly false information or explain how it's possible that 'multiple sources'
all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries
and protests the next time they're attacked as 'Fake News' should fall on deaf ears, since the
real author of those attacks -- the reason those attacks resonate -- is themselves and their
own conduct."
Hilary gave it away, as the (anti-democratic)"Democratic Party" gave it all away and has
been doing it for decades.
Whereas the right has wisely (for it's purposes) built long term infrastructure of funded think
tanks, media, fundamentalist ideologists, etc; the Democratic Establishment has dumped on it's
base at practically ever turn, never really showing actual support for it's public community,
and has joined with the right to destroy all attempt to build an actual peoples' political
party.
I just turned 84 and have witnessed the ever-growing weakness and right-leaning of the Party"
since I was a little kid and have seen it only become more disgustingly lame and disingenuous
in all these years since, with extended travel, 20-year military service and work around the
world, in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
And we are largely to blame, being humans and Americans, we sit back-busy with our lives, and
neglect our responsibilities to our fellow man and community.
Get up off your ass, guys
JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:53 pm
I must add, the so-called Party has quite consistently ACTIVELY fought against labor,
consumers, t's own loyal public.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Among the many great comments posted here I find in your resume Mr Opperman a ton of
experienced words worth listening too. In fact, it is people such as yourself that I feel our
younger generation should be learning from. Your traveling, and working for the government has
given you an insight that many of us do not have, nor will get since we are all not like you
John. So keep posting, and tell us what you think America should do next, as we go forward.
Thank you for your remarks, they are respected for what you have earned. Joe
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for this post John.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm
In the end, this whole RussiaGate scandal may actually have a positive impact if it can be
proven that it was a conspiracy cooked up by the "Deep State" as insurance in case of a Trump
victory. If this is proven and actually becomes common knowledge, people like Brennan and
Clapper, and their MSM mouthpieces, will never be trusted again. Though heads didn't roll after
the exposure of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie, this one might tip the balance. Their
argument that the "intelligence was mistaken" won't fly, as RussiaGate is so obviously a
purposely constructed lie. It would be even greater if this led to a counter-investigation
where all the perps were exposed and publicly prosecuted, and the Intelligence Agencies were
"broken into 1000 pieces." Maybe while they were at it, they could get around to auditing the
Pentagon. I like to dream big.
My hope is that websites like this one can continue to build an audience and speak truth to
power now that net neutrality appears dead.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Funny how the NYT will try and make hay with a collection of various Russian disjointed ads
on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx out weights the 4.9 billion dollars worth of free
media coverage the MSM gave Trump through the whole 2016 presidential campaign, and nobody
thinks nothing of it. If there was any type of collusion to help Trump win the White House then
why not question this free media give away?
As a side note, should we investigate Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn for colluding with
Israel?
Senator Mark Warner plays the part of the inquisitor well, and for that reason he has loss
my respect, if he ever had it to begin with. Enough of covering up for Hillary's guilt complex
to why she loss the election. Someone should just tell her, that even though she has done
everything there is in her power to take Putin out of power, that her presidential loss is all
on her. Putin didn't need to interfere, since by Hillary just being Hillary was enough to keep
her out of reach of the Oval Office.
I hope that in the coming year, that by some stroke of luck, that William Binney will get
the praise he deserves. We need more people like Binney working in our government, and without
him we all are left vulnerable to the many who don't represent our citizen values. I thought
the MSM's treatment of William Binney was disgraceful, to say the least.
Lastly, I would only hope that whoever it was that started this Russia-Gate nonsense would
be revealed, but hope doesn't prosecute anyone, but knowledge at least allows you too see who
and what is behind the curtain.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:46 pm
" a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of
$44,000.xx .."
Yes , it was amazing that Russia was able to control our election so cheaply , but really ,
that was nothing. They swung the UK Brexit vote with Facebook ads costing them only 97 cents !
:
This whole Russiagate fraud could serve to awake a lot of Americans, if they would only look
into it. You are not going to find a more blatant example of fake news by every major media,
and also those supposedly upstanding Senators and Representatives, FBI and Justice Icons. If
the public ignores opportunities to wake up to this outrageous scam being perpetrated on them
now, there is little hope that they ever will. I try to get my friends interested in
researching Russiagate, and a few of them have become curious and started asking questions
– that's how awakening begins .
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Agreed. It's important to have just one or a few topics at most that you can suggest to your
uninformed friends as being worthy of their own time to research , with the ultimate goal of "
waking up ". Russia-gate is perfect. The Syrian War is another good one.
Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Also, a convenient excuse to discredit the "Special Counsel" Mueller investigation. "Witch
hunt", "Fake News", which will come in handy if any real crimes are exposed. Reminds me of one
criminal mob taking over territory from the current bunch of criminals.
Sad to see. The definition of "government" is that it represents "the people". Yet, I wonder if
any government on Earth does represent "the people".
Brendan , December 15, 2017 at 6:02 pm
In spite of all the blatant lies that it publishes, the New York Times is still highly
regarded by the political and media establishment, even in Europe.
In Hamburg on 3 December 2017, the NYT was awarded the Marion Dönhoff Prize for
International Understanding and Reconciliation. In his presentation speech, the German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the NYT as an authority of enlightenment and a
beacon of reason.
In fact, none of the media outlets that were recently declared foreign agents by Moscow is
either independent or a newspaper. That list consists only of the US government financed VOA
and RFE/RL and a number of websites and broadcasters that VOA and RFE/RL control.
Apart from that, the Russian "foreign agents" list is just a direct retaliation against
Washington for doing exactly the same thing to RT and Sputnik, who were forced to register as
foreign agents. Apparently the "freedom of the press" isn't so important when it applies to
Russian media organisations working in the USA.
"... Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup). ..."
"... I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. ..."
Lately, I have been reading Luke Harding's "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win."
Harding is a journalist who works as a foreign correspondent for the Guardian newspaper. His book draws heavily upon the "Steele
Dossier." (q.v. Wikipedia: Donald Trump-Russian Dossier) Harding's Wikipedia page is also very interesting, as is some of the
information that he generously supplies in "Collusion." For example, on pp.37-38, Harding describes a three-day event in November
of 2016 that was sponsored by the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, N.S. Harding describes the objective of the
gathered international group as making sense of the world in the aftermath of Trump's stunning victory. Interestingly, Senator
John McCain was one of the delegates; however, the participation of Sir Andrew Wood, a former Ambassador to Russia from 1995-2000
is perhaps even more interesting. Wood and McCain were participants in the Ukraine panel.
Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence
Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had
gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute
for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy
and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence
H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics,
1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup).
At this conference in Halifax, Harding reports that Wood briefed McCain about the contents of the Steele Dossier [rattle-tat-tattle-tale
MI6's "ScuttleTrump" operation seems to proceeding swimmingly at this point]. The senile senator from Arizona evidently decided
that " the implications [of the dossier] were sufficiently alarming to dispatch a former senior U.S. official to meet with Steele
and find out more." The emissary, David Kramer, is currently a senior director at the McCain institute for International Leadership:
Kramer was formerly the President of the highly questionable Freedom House, a nest of NWO neocons and neoliberals. (q.v. Wikipedia
article, Freedom House, especially the section on Criticism/Relationship with the U.S. Government.) Please, recall McCain's role
in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.
I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. Then there is the bizarre case of
Carter Page, the former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and purported lover of all things Russian and of Putin. This obsessive
enthusiast is beginning to remind me of another obsessive Russian enthusiast, U.S. Marine, and defector to the soviet Union; Patsy
Oswald. I am starting to look at this Trump-Russia fraud as more than a takedown of the crooked Don. It seems to be an ingenious
way of further demonizing Putin and the Russians, and, if so, it is working like a charm. The MSM echo chamber cannot get enough
of it. and neither can the NWO.
"... Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order. ..."
"... Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality? ..."
"... The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more. ..."
"... "Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel. ..."
"... "The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration." ..."
"... Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen ..."
"... Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course. ..."
Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel.
It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to
destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is
the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New
World Order.
China and Russia are only nominal adversaries in the world economy. They also
want to impoverish the majority of the world's population even at the cost of enriching some
individuals to the point of becoming gods. In a sense, this is what liberals have wanted, to
level the field that the poor people of the world exist on.
jaycee , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly
states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that
Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White
House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the
personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his
administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a
national security threat." Objective reality?
Colleen O'Brien , December 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm
All the layers of deceit, denial and distraction bode ill for the Democratic Party and
MSM. Thank you Robert Parry for standing up to all this disinformation & propaganda. The
"Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election
process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged"
elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college,
ranked voting and more.
Reforming our election process is the most important issue because what we have now and
what came before is because of the money which owns the politicians and who no longer
represent the American People! Nothing will change until we fix this!
Abe , December 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm
"Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than
just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting
American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner,
and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to
do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed
virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel.
"There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will
never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump,
Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel
on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act.
Israel's 'Greek Chorus' of supporters in the US news media and Congress brought up the Logan
Act to minimize the damage caused by collusion between Israel's skink-like ambassador to the
UN Danny Danon, Netanyahu, Kushner, Flynn, Trump, and Haley to kill the resolution. If the
Logan Act had any enforcement teeth, it would have been used a long time ago to indict George
Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and other pro-Israeli billionaire
influence-peddlers, who represent the interests of other nations and engage in their own
foreign policies.
"The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving
Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve
Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead,
Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations
located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the
Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for
Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump
administration."
Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will
inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental
reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe
the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the
accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false
accusation – without the slightest proof, of course.
Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm
If "our plan" exist, then Michael Morell should be persecuted.
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n. ..."
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml ..."
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant
Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled
with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n.
Anna , December 14, 2017 at 1:11 am
"You all keep hating on Democracy."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies.
Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha" – and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens).
One does not need to be Trump apologist to sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
"... The initiative described in this article reminds me of how the World Bank pushed hard for emerging economies to develop capital markets, for the greater good of America's investment bankers. ..."
"... By Burcu Kilic, an expert on legal, economic and political issues. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... Today, the big tech race is for data extractivism from those yet to be 'connected' in the world – tech companies will use all their power to achieve a global regime in which small nations cannot regulate either data extraction or localisation. ..."
"... One suspects big money will be thrown at this by the leading tech giants. ..."
"... Out of idle curiosity, how could you accurately deduce my country of origin from my name? ..."
December 14, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. Notice that Costa
Rica is served up as an example in this article. Way back in 1997, American Express had
designated Costa Rica as one of the countries it identified as sufficiently high income so as
to be a target for a local currency card offered via a franchise agreement with a domestic
institution (often but not always a bank). 20 years later, the Switzerland of Central America
still has limited Internet connectivity, yet is precisely the sort of place that tech titans
like Google would like to dominate.
The initiative described in this article reminds me of how the World Bank pushed hard
for emerging economies to develop capital markets, for the greater good of America's investment
bankers.
By Burcu Kilic, an expert on legal, economic and political issues. Originally published
at
openDemocracy
Today, the big tech race is for data extractivism from those yet to be 'connected' in
the world – tech companies will use all their power to achieve a global regime in which
small nations cannot regulate either data extraction or localisation.
To avoid a 'failure ministerial," some countries see the solution as pushing governments to
open a mandate to start conversations that might lead to a negotiation on binding rules for
e-commerce and a declaration of the gathering as the "digital ministerial". Argentina's MC11
chair, Susana Malcorra, is actively pushing for member states to embrace e-commerce at the WTO,
claiming that it is necessary to " bridge the gap between the
haves and have-nots ".
It is not very clear what kind of gaps Malcorra is trying to bridge. It surely isn't the
"connectivity gap" or "digital divide" that is growing between developed and developing
countries, seriously impeding digital learning and knowledge in developing countries. In fact,
half of humanity is not even connected to the internet, let alone positioned to develop
competitive markets or bargain at a multilateral level. Negotiating binding e-commerce rules at
the WTO would only widen that gap.
Dangerously, the "South Vision" of digital trade in the global trade arena is being shaped
by a recent alliance of governments and well-known tech-sector lobbyists, in a group called
'Friends of E-Commerce for Development' (FED), including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uruguay, and, most recently, China. FED
claims that e-commerce is a tool to drive growth, narrow the digital divide, and generate
digital solutions for developing and least developed countries.
However, none of the countries in the group (apart from China) is leading or even remotely
ready to be in a position to negotiate and push for binding rules on digital trade that will be
favorable to them, as their economies are still far away from the technology revolution. For
instance, it is perplexing that one of the most fervent defenders of FED's position is Costa
Rica. The country's economy is based on the export of bananas, coffee, tropical
fruits, and low-tech medical instruments, and almost half of its population
is offline . Most of the countries in FED are far from being powerful enough to shift
negotiations in favor of small players.
U.S.-based tech giants and Chinese Alibaba – so-called GAFA-A – dominate, by
far, the future of the digital playing field, including issues such as identification and
digital payments, connectivity, and the next generation of logistics solutions. In fact, there
is a no-holds-barred ongoing race among these tech giants to consolidate their market share in
developing economies, from the race to grow the advertising market to the race to increase
online payments.
An e-commerce agenda that claims unprecedented development for the Global South is a Trojan
horse move. Beginning negotiations on such topics at this stage – before governments are
prepared to understand what is at stake – could lead to devastating results, accelerating
liberalization and the consolidation of the power of tech giants to the detriment of local
industries, consumers, and citizens. Aware of the increased disparities between North and
South, and the data dominance of a tiny group of GAFA-A companies, a group of African nations
issued a statement opposing the digital ambitions of the host for MC11. But the political
landscape is more complex, with China, the EU, and Russia now supporting the idea of a
"digital" mandate .
Repeating the Same Mistakes?
The relationships of most countries with tech companies are as imbalanced as their
relationships with Big Pharma, and there are many parallels to note. Not so long ago, the
countries of the Global South faced Big Pharma power in pharmaceutical markets in a similar
way. Some developing countries had the same enthusiasm when they negotiated intellectual
property rules for the protection of innovation and research and development costs. In reality,
those countries were nothing more than users and consumers of that innovation, not the owners
or creators. The lessons of negotiating trade issues that lie at the core of public interest
issues – in that case, access to medicines – were costly. Human lives and
fundamental rights of those who use online services should not be forgotten when addressing the
increasingly worrying and unequal relationships with tech power.
The threat before our eyes is similarly complex and equally harmful to the way our societies
will be shaped in the coming years. In the past, the Big Pharma race was for patent
exclusivity, to eliminate local generic production and keep drug prices high. Today, the Big
Tech race is for data extractivism from those who have yet to be connected in the world, and
tech companies will use all the power they hold to achieve a global regime in which small
nations cannot regulate either data extraction or data localization.
Big Tech is one of the most concentrated and resourceful industries of all time. The
bargaining power of developing countries is minimal. Developing countries will basically be
granting the right to cultivate small parcels of a land controlled by data lords -- under their
rules, their mandate, and their will -- with practically no public oversight. The stakes are
high. At the core of it is the race to conquer the markets of digital payments and the battle
to become the platform where data flows, splitting the territory as old empires did in the
past. As
the Economist claimed on May 6, 2017: "Conflicts over control of oil have scarred
the world for decades. No one yet worries that wars will be fought over data. But the data
economy has the same potential for confrontation."
If countries from the Global South want to prepare for data wars, they should start thinking
about how to reduce the control of Big Tech over -- how we communicate, shop, and learn the
news -- , again, over our societies. The solution lies not in making rules for data
liberalization, but in devising ways to use the law to reduce Big Tech's power and protect
consumers and citizens. Finding the balance would take some time and we are going to take that
time to find the right balance, we are not ready to lock the future yet.
One suspects big money will be thrown at this by the leading tech giants. To paraphrase
from a comment I made recently regarding a similar topic : "with markets in the developed
world pretty much sewn up by the tripartite tech overlords (google, fb and amazon), the next
3 billion users for their products/services are going to come from developing world". With
this dynamic in mind, and the "constant growth" mantra humming incessantly in the background,
it's easy to see how high stakes a game this is for the tech giants and how no resources will
be spared to stymie any efforts at establishing a regulatory oversight framework that will
protect the digital rights of citizens in the global south.
Multilateral fora like the WTO are de facto enablers for the marauding frontal attacks of
transnational corporations, and it's disheartening to see that some developing nations have
already nailed the digital futures of their citizens to the mast of the tech giants by
joining this alliance. What's more, this signing away of their liberty will be sold to the
citizenry as the best way to usher them into the brightest of all digital futures.
One suspects big money will be thrown at this by the leading tech giants.
Vast sums of money are already being thrown at bringing Africa online, for better
or worse. Thus, the R&D aimed at providing wireless Internet via giant
drones/balloons/satellites by Google, Facebook, etc.
You're African. Possibly South African by your user name, which may explain why you're a
little behind the curve, because the action is already happening, but more to the north --
and particularly in East Africa.
The big corporations -- and the tech giants are competing with the banking/credit card
giants -- have noted how mobile technology leapt over the dearth of last century's telephony
tech, land lines, and in turn enabled the highest adoption rates of cellphone banking in the
world. (Particularly in East Africa, as I say.) The payoffs for big corporations are massive
-- de facto cashless societies where the corporations control the payment systems
–and the politicians are mostly cheap.
In Nigeria, the government has launched a Mastercard-branded national ID card that's also
a payment card, in one swoop handing Mastercard more than 170 million potential customers,
and their personal and biometric data.
In Kenya, the sums transferred by mobile money operator M-Pesa are more than 25 percent of
that country's GDP.
You can see that bringing Africa online is technically a big, decade-long project. But
also that the potential payoffs are vast. Though I also suspect China may come out ahead --
they're investing far more in Africa and in some areas their technology -- drones, for
instance -- is already superior to what the Europeans and the American companies have.
Hoisted from a comment I made here recently: "Here in South Africa and through its Free
Basics programme, facebook is jumping into bed with unsuspecting ISPs (I say unsuspecting
because fb will soon be muscling in on their territory and becoming an ISP itself by
provisioning bandwidth directly from its floating satellites) and circumventing net
neutrality "
I'm also keenly aware of the developments in Kenya re: safaricom and Mpesa and how that
has led to traditional banking via bank accounts being largely leapfrogged for those moving
from being unbanked to active economic citizens requiring money transfer facilities. Given
the huge succes of Mpesa, I wouldn't be surprised if a multinational tech behemoth (chinese
or american) were to make a play for acquiring safaricom and positioning it as a triple-play
ISP, money transfer/banking services and digital content provider (harvesting data about
users habits on an unprecedented scale across multiple areas of their lives), first in Kenya
then expanded throughout east, central and west africa. I must add that your statement about
Nigeria puts Mark Zuckerberg's visit there a few months back into context somewhat, perhaps a
reconnaissance mission of sorts.
Out of idle curiosity, how could you accurately deduce my country of origin from my
name?
As you also write: "with markets in the developed world pretty much sewn up by the
tripartite tech overlords (google, fb and amazon), the next 3 billion users for their
products/services are going to come from developing world."
Absolutely true. This cannot be stressed enough. The tech giants know this and the race is
on.
Fox reporter Shannon Brem tweeted that Fox News producer Jake Gibson has obtained 10k texts
between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, one of which says "Trump should go f himself," and "F
TRUMP."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
The messages between Strzok and Page make it abundantly clear that the agents investigating
both candidates for President were extremely biased against then-candidate Trump, while going
extremely easy on Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
... ... ...
The messages sent between Strzok and Page, as well as Strzok's conduct in the
Clinton investigation and several prior cases are now under review for political bias by the
Justice Department . Furthermore, the fact that the reason behind Strzok's firing was kept a
secret for months is of keen interest to House investigators. According to
Fox News two weeks ago :
"While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators."
"Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray." -Fox News
Strzok also relied on the Trump-Russia dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion
GPS. In August, 2016 - nine months before Robert Mueller's Special Counsel was launched, the
New York Times reported that Strzok was hand picked by FBI brass to supervise an investigation
into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion . The FBI investigation grew legs after they
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and decided to act on its salacious and largely
unproven claims, According to
Fox News
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the
project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. - Fox
News
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and
Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within
the dossier - which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials.
... ... ...
When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't
pay him according to the New York Times .
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new
intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his
apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice" on what to
do.
The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the
F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the
offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . - NYT
Did you catch that? Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier,
Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team
. Steele was ultimately paid
$168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
There's more - according to journalist Sara Carter there are more anti-Trump messages
exchanged between other members of Mueller's team
Sean Hannity: I'm hearing rumors all over the place Sara Carter that there are other
anti-Trump text-emails out there. And we know about them.
Sara Carter: I think you're hearing correctly Sean and I think a lot more is going to come
out. In fact, I know a lot more is going to come out based on the sources I've spoken to.
... ... ...
The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are highly compromising , and prove
that both FBI investigations into Clinton and Trump were headed by a man, aided by his
mistress, who did not want to see Trump win the White House. Furthermnore, if anti-Trump text
messages were exchanged between other members of Robert Mueller's special counsel, which are
apparently on deck for later this month or January, it's hard to imagine anyone taking anything
concluded by this dog-and-pony show seriously.
So let's see here, I'm looking for the parts about the FBI?/special investigation, or even
anything relevant to the subject matter in your post Jack. Nope nothing there except a
speculation about something that has long since passed and with no real way to determine
actual facts. But hey thanks for taking up all the unused space here on the forum.
Back to revelant speculation...
Melissa Hodgman is the wife of the FBI scum. Guess what she does? She is head of the SEC
enforcement division. I guess that's where 'ol Pete learned how to turn "grossly negligent"
into "extremely careless". I guess that's good enough for the SEC so it should be good enough
for the Effing Bee Eye.
funny how two libtards who are cheating on their partners, can have the audacity to
believe theyre the intelligent ones. Lost, hollow, carcases of human beings they are.
You can not be serious. A FBI investigator can't let any bias influence their
investigations regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. This Agent saying
that he was in a position to protect the country from Trump puts his bias on full display. I
expect FBI agents to be all Joe Friday all of the time.
When law enforcement is taking pro-active actions to protect Hillary and insure her
presidency...should anyone be shocked that a 'rat' inside her campaign gets murdered and no
one cares?
Sexual Blackmail rings have been around forever. Every 1st world clandestine intel agency
has long since perfected these types of traps. Starts with basic Honey Traps and goes to kids
and much worse crimes than sexual misconduct (think the Godfather when the Senator was set up
at the Brothel and you get a good idea).
Before someone becomes a dependable tool you need to have them by the balls. It has been
estimated that 1 in 3 politicians in D.C. are comprimised this way at some point during their
career. This is how the CIA controls politicians outside the US. It gets quid pro quo from
other intel agencies for internal control (Mossad, MI6, or other). It's an old game. Epstein
is Mossad. The island is a trap outside of U.S. Why would alan dershowitz go there? Simple he
was lured and trapped. Think about it, if you are in this dirty business, how do get a good
Lawyer? Good lawyers who are 'committed' to your cause always come in handy.
This is how real power is and has been aquired. With power comes control.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human
beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil
Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set
Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking,
Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child /
Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the
aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying &
Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure.
Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly
Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign
Pyramid Model of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal
Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now,
they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep
State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for
decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient
Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has
never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are
all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be
simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite.
The Deep State will always exist.
However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it
are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
"President Trump needs to do mass firings at the corrupt FBI/DOJ"
Firings? Firings are for Starbucks employees who dip into the cash register. When people
afforded this level of "trust" and responsibility show how deeply corrupt they are - in that
they openly aid and abet horrific criminals (HRC et al) they need to go to JAIL. FOREVER. And
their supervisors - who goddamn well knew what the fuck they were doing - need to be their
cellmates.
The FBI and DOJ have lost ALL integrity, honor, and moral authority. At this point, if I
saw an FBI agent on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
Looks like pressure from the "intelligence community" was the decisive factor in appointment of the special prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated. ..."
"... Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon. The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.? ..."
"... The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated him to be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional. ..."
"... In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy. ..."
"... The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein -- could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation. ..."
"... turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external, more corrosive ways ..."
In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the
Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated.
You remember Rod Rosenstein. Way back on May 9, Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, was thrust from bureaucratic obscurity
when the White House cited his three-page memo as the basis for the firing of F.B.I. director James Comey.
Rosenstein, after a day or so, then receded from the headlines, thanks to the cyclonic chaos machine that is the Trump administration:
Oval Office leaks to the Russians! Israeli spies! Angry tweets! But the bespectacled, seemingly mild-mannered lawyer just got very
interesting again.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert
S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
It was a stunning reversal for Rosenstein, who for weeks had been fending off congressional calls for just such a move. It was
also -- if the details are true -- a stunning vote of no-confidence in President Donald Trump : Department of Justice sources say
the White House was given only 30-minutes notice before the public announcement, and that Rosenstein had already signed the order
at that point. It may also be a sign of Rosenstein's anger at being bullied by Trump last week -- when the White House, amid the
uproar over Comey's firing, tried to pin the blame on Rosenstein.
There were also pragmatic procedural reasons. "President Trump basically forced a special counsel to be appointed the minute he
made Rosenstein a witness to Comey's firing -- by saying that he'd accepted the recommendation of Rosenstein to fire Comey," says
Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor. "Trump disqualified Rosenstein as an impartial prosecutor and made this appointment all
but inevitable."
It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting
of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon.
The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in
the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016
probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.?
Rosenstein will also be grilled about the underlying mess: Was the president trying to slow down or scuttle the Russia inquiry
by firing the F.B.I. director? "We are very curious about that," a Senate source says.
The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years
as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein
stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President
George W. Bush nominated him to
be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous
regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional.
In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy.
"A lot of people, like me, who were really troubled by the Sessions appointment as attorney general thought Rod would be the person
who would stand up for D.O.J.'s independence in a pinch," says Matthew Miller, who was Attorney General Eric Holder's spokesman.
"And that did not prove to be the case last week. Rod wrote that memo, and it was a farce. It was a cover story so Trump could fire
Comey over the Russia investigation. That was the moment for Rod to stand up and say no, and not only did he not do that, he helped
load the gun for Trump."
The truth could be more complex, of course: Rosenstein may have genuinely believed Comey should be fired, and he also may have
been an unwitting tool for Trump and Sessions. Appointing a special counsel "is an admission by Rosenstein that he messed up badly
last week," Miller says. "He still needs to explain himself to Congress."
Attorneys on both sides of the political aisle who know Rosenstein don't question his impartiality when it comes to evaluating
facts and legal issues. They wonder, however, whether Rosenstein has been out of his political depth as deputy attorney general --
and whether he wrote the Comey memo without sufficient concern as to how it might be used. "The skills needed to be an effective
U.S. attorney are significantly different from the ones needed as deputy attorney general," one D.O.J. veteran says. "Being a straight
shooter is great, but you have a lot of other considerations in those top leadership positions."
Even with Mueller now overseeing the Russia investigation, Rosenstein's impact should be felt on two other crucial fronts.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with
Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to
drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein --
could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation.
Then there's the larger, murkier subject of leaks. After Trump apparently blabbed confidential, Israeli-developed intelligence
about the fight against ISIS to the Russians, conservative media outlets have been loudly calling for whoever tipped reporters to
the story be hunted down. As Maryland U.S. attorney, Rosenstein's highest-profile case was the prosecution of James "Hoss" Cartwright,
a retired four-star Marine general and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cartwright was accused of disclosing
information about covert anti-Iranian operations to reporters; he was charged with lying about his conversations to F.B.I. investigators.
Rosenstein extracted a guilty plea from Cartwright and pushed for a two-year jail term.
Trump apparently told Comey he wanted reporters who'd received leaks locked up. And now the White House and Sessions are prioritizing
the pursuit of leakers. "It's almost as if people think they have a right to violate the law, and this has got to end, and probably
it will take some convictions to put an end to it," Sessions told Bill O'Reilly on Fox in March. Rosenstein, who is in charge of
the Justice Department's day-to-day operations, may be the one tasked with implementing a crackdown.
But the Trump-inflicted turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external,
more corrosive ways. "What happened with the president and the Russians the other day makes counterterrorism work even more difficult,"
says Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who pursued the 9/11 attackers and now runs an international security firm.
"Early on, the
Israeli intelligence and military establishment warned the government about sharing intelligence with the White House for fear that
Trump would share it with the Russians, and that the Russians will share it with the Iranians. And then we've proved them right.
What I hear from people around the world, and from people who work for the U.S. overseas, is that the situation is chaotic. It's
becoming increasingly difficult for people in nati
If I had a dollar for every time I heard the words "special prosecutor" over the past week, I would have enough money to qualify
for a
cabinet position in the Trump Administration. Various Democratic
senators have been calling
for a special prosecutor whenever they can get close enough to a microphone. Last week, a number of state attorneys general
wrote
a joint letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein urging him to appoint an independent special prosecutor. The New York
Times Editorial Board
joined
the chorus a few days ago.
The idea of appointing a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation is not new. In March, a public opinion
poll suggested
that two-thirds of Americans supported the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was before Comey was fired, and before the
competing excuses for firing him that came from the White House and President Trump himself.
A few months ago, I
predicted that Trump might fire Comey. (I'm not happy I was right, and the writing on the wall was clear enough for anyone who
cared to look.) I thought back then that the only way to move forward with a credible investigation into Russia's involvement with
the last election would be to appoint a special counsel. What was a good idea then is a necessity now. It's not just because Trump
pulled the trigger on firing Comey. Although it's unusual, it's not illegal for a President
to fire an FBI Director. A President
can hire and fire executive branch officials as he sees fit. Read More
close dialog
close dialog And that's the problem. Trump can remove anyone and everyone holding a top position at
the Justice Department who may be involved in this investigation. Clearly, he's not been shy about sacking Justice Department officials.
Just ask Sally Yates
and Preet Bahrara , or the other 46 US Attorneys who were told to vacate their offices before sundown earlier this year. Views
on Comey's firing
Let's imagine for a minute that the people in charge decided that appointing a special prosecutor was the right thing to do.
This is how it would work . The attorney general (or the deputy attorney general in a case like this one, where the attorney
general recuses himself) has the discretion to appoint a "special counsel" when: (1) a criminal investigation is warranted; (2) there
is a potential conflict of interest if the Justice Department conducted the investigation, or there are "extraordinary circumstances"
present; and (3) it would be in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. The decision by the deputy attorney general to
appoint (or not appoint) a special counsel is not be reviewable.
Although political and public pressure can certainly influence the decision, it's entirely up to Rosenstein to do it or not. I
know that, according to sources cited by CNN,
Rosenstein doesn't
see the need for a special counsel at this point. He's wrong. It doesn't really matter if there is nothing to the allegations
of Russia's meddling in the election or collusion with the Trump team. At this point, there is so much distrust and skepticism about
the process itself that there needs to be an independent prosecutor looking into these allegations just to assure the country that
the President and his associates did not commit a crime. Rosenstein shouldn't get any friction from his boss.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly
recused himself from any investigation dealing with Russian meddling, and Sessions
had no problem with the
idea of a special prosecutor when the potential target was Hillary Clinton. I recognize that there are legitimate arguments against
the appointment of a special counsel. The process can be expensive, lack clear direction, last for a year or more, and is not guaranteed
to reach any meaningful conclusions. But the benefits of appointing a special counsel in this case greatly outweigh the potential
downsides. Although no one has asked me (and no one probably will), I know just the person for the job: Larry Thompson, a former
deputy attorney general and former US attorney in Republican administrations.
He has extensive private sector experience, and is currently trusted by a federal court to oversee Volkswagen's compliance with
criminal sanctions related to its emissions scandal. He is a loyal Republican and
a supporter of Sessions , so the GOP couldn't credibly claim he's politically biased. More importantly, he's well-respected,
extremely competent, and experienced in complex criminal investigations.
Whether it's Larry Thompson or someone else, a special prosecutor should be appointed to take over this investigation. If Rosenstein
is the man everyone
says he is ,
I believe he will appoint a qualified, independent prosecutor to take over this mess of an investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, the ball
is in your court. Don't let America down.
"... At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel, saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance. ..."
"... Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney, he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater. ..."
"... Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas. ..."
Atty. Gen.
Jeff Sessions
recused himself from the Russia investigation in March after news reports revealed he had failed to tell his
Senate
confirmation hearing about his meetings last year with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.
Rosenstein, a veteran prosecutor who had been serving as the U.S. attorney for Maryland, was confirmed as the No. 2 by the Senate
the following month.
That put him in charge of the investigation into whether current or former aides to
President Trump
coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
What is Rosenstein's role in the Russia probe?
It will fall to Rosenstein to decide whether to file criminal charges against any of Trump's aides, to drop the case entirely
or to hand it off to an independent prosecutor.
At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel,
saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance.
But he said he had "no reason to doubt" the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian authorities sought to influence
the presidential race. He also said he believed the
Justice
Department could handle the most politically complicated cases without fear of compromise.
Rosenstein laid out the case for Comey to be removed in a three-page memo that the White House released Tuesday.
In firing Comey, Trump had said he acted on Rosenstein's recommendation.
In a memorandum to Sessions, Rosenstein harshly criticized Comey for actions going back to last July, when he held a news conference
to announce that the FBI would not seek charges against presidential candidate and former Secretary of State
Hillary
Clinton in the email investigation but denounced her conduct.
That was a serious misjudgment, Rosenstein wrote, adding, "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our
thoughts at a press conference."
He went on to say that Comey had made the problems worse with his decision to disclose in late October -- 11 days before the election
-- that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Clinton after finding State Department emails on a computer belonging to former
Rep.
Anthony
Weiner , the estranged husband of Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
.
Reports have since come out that Rosenstein threatened to resign over the way the Comey dismissal was attributed in part to the
memo.
As Sessions' top deputy, Rosenstein is responsible for using Justice Department resources to step up enforcement of immigration
laws, a Trump administration priority.
Sessions already has instructed all U.S. attorney's offices to be more aggressive about filing criminal charges against people
who cross the border illegally, and he has threatened to cut off department grants to so-called sanctuary cities unless they cooperate
with immigration agents.
[Sessions] picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how cases are decided, and should be decided.
-- Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general from 1994-1997
How did he become deputy attorney general?
The Senate voted overwhelmingly last month to confirm Rod J. Rosenstein as the No. 2 official at the Justice Department.
Rosenstein, 52, won unusual bipartisan support on the strength of his crime-fighting efforts as the U.S. attorney for Maryland
for the last 12 years. He was confirmed as deputy attorney general by a vote of 94 to 6.
Where did he get his start?
Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney,
he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution.
He first was nominated to the post by President George W. Bush. President Obama kept him on after the Senate did not move on Bush's
previous nomination of Rosenstein for a seat on a federal appeals court.
In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their
investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater.
Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others
were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas.
Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 under the Clinton administration, praised Rosenstein at
a recent ethics conference.
She said the department would remain in experienced hands. Sessions "picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how
cases are decided, and should be decided," she said.
Special prosecutor was appointed. But not the one that Ben Domenech expected. Still a very
interesting detail is this article is that Comey seems to be very well informed about this
mechanism and used it himself. So "special prosecutor gambit" was played by an experienced chess
player with full support from intelligence agencies and within certain circle of high level
officials within FBI and Justice department.
Notable quotes:
"... This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey, the current director of the FBI. ..."
We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. The current system that is so
obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot. With the race for the Democratic
nomination effectively concluded, Hillary Clinton now awaits the endorsement of President Obama , which they expect to come
within the next few weeks. Obama is poised to play
a big role in Clinton's campaign against Donald Trump, acting as an emissary to groups and
audiences that have been more reluctant to support Clinton in the past. But this creates its
own set of problems: namely, that the FBI under the auspices of Obama's administration is also
actively investigating Clinton's email server and her mishandling of classified
information.
It's hard to see any way that a conclusion reached under people like Loretta Lynch, serving
at the pleasure of a president advocating vociferously for Clinton's election, would be seen as
treating the candidate fairly. Even if Clinton is cleared, a dark cloud will hang over the
process. And Clinton herself should not be comfortable with the prospect of a process Trump
will certainly denounce as crooked, especially considering that many Americans would likely
agree with him.
Rather than deal with the typical rhetorical battles over this issue that have played out on
cable television over the past year, Republicans in Washington should cite historical precedent
in this context. Back in 2003, when a top presidential appointee was suspected of mishandling
classified information, that president's attorney general recused himself from the matter. A
special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the allegations and determine if prosecution
was warranted. That prosecutor investigated the case, brought charges, and obtained a
conviction.
This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House
official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a
jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey,
the current director of the FBI.
John Aschroft, the attorney general under George W. Bush, had the good sense to recuse
himself from the matter and appoint Comey to make the decision about how the case ought to
proceed. Ashcroft knew his own involvement would only taint whatever decision was finally made.
So he removed entirely the possibility of political interference by recusing himself. As a
Senator, Barack Obama hailed the verdict in that
case and the process that led to it.
Republicans ought to demand that Loretta Lynch do the same thing Obama's current FBI
director did when he worked at the Department of Justice in 2003: appoint a special
prosecutor.
If Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong, if no laws were broken, no classified information was
mishandled, and no American men and women were put at risk as a result of her actions, then she
has nothing to fear from an independent investigation of her activities. Where she stands right
now is the worst of all worlds: she could still be prosecuted by FBI/DOJ, but if she's not,
everyone will assume that political interference saved her. She can never get out from under
that cloud, no matter what happens.
An independent prosecutor, however, can put all of that to rest. If he or she finds evidence
of any crimes, then the case will be prosecuted. And if the prosecutor decides not to charge,
we'll know that it wasn't a political decision.
This is actually the best of all worlds for Hillary, because it actually gives her the
opportunity to clear her name, if she's innocent. It also happens to be the best solution for
the American public. We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. We deserve a
law enforcement system that actually enforces the law. A special prosecutor can deliver it. The
current system that is so obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot.
Ben Domenech is the publisher
of The Federalist. Sign up for a free trial of his daily newsletter, The Transom.
"... Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment and dissonance. ..."
"... The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it, which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed, they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time. ..."
"... Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining 20% truth was twisted beyond recognition. ..."
"... There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. ..."
FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN,
with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the
end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation's largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely
false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.
The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11 a.m. EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly
hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign,
even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the
world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the
U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an "arm of Russian intelligence," and therefore , so does the U.S. media.
This entire revelation was based on an email
which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named "Michael J.
Erickson" -- someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify -- to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption
key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had "uploaded." The email was a smoking gun, in CNN's extremely excited mind, because
it was dated September 4 -- 10 days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online -- and thus proved that
the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.
It's impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it's necessary to watch it
for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering
a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:
There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after
CNN broadcast its story -- and then hyped it over and over and over -- the Washington Post
reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.
The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 -- which means it was sent after WikiLeaks
had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, "Michael
J. Erickson" was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available
DNC emails that WikiLeaks -- as everyone by then already knew -- had
publicly promoted . In other words, the
email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.
The real cartoon network if you ask me. Once people blow it, their public character becomes that of a cartoon character. Franken,
Conyers, Hillary, Weinstein and the Weiners. Why is CNN and liberal media exempt? Oh. They aren't.
Kudos to Greenwald for calling the US media out on this occasion, but in reality the US media humiliates itself weekly, if not
daily, if not hourly, with its false reports, poorly concealed agenda and generally propagandistic approach to everything.
Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also
naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to
a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment
and dissonance.
The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it,
which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their
reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed,
they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time.
Yes. Most of our fellows are willfully ignorant cowards. I also believe that many cope by turning on Confederate statues, getting
worked up over bathrooms, etc.
Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite
rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating
country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining
20% truth was twisted beyond recognition.
The media has become a "fifth column" of the government and is not to be trusted.
To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ability for ordinary citizens to be real "journalists", quite often
getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.
In fact, there are calls by "mainstream media" to "license" journalists, in an attempt to keep these "citizen journalists" out
twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays
But do they really watch the TV? The news shows are terrible for getting a coherent message across.
There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is
up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news.
In an hour of a news show its probably 15 minutes, broken into 1 minute segments of actual news. The rest is just flashing
lights and ads and what news will be next. Except for PBS and NPR of course which are just liberal propaganda. Democracy Now,
Charlie Rose, Travis Smiley have fewer ads, but who can listen to them or look at them? I'd like to smash Charley Rose' sanctimonious
face. And Amy Goodman, why women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold elected or appointed office.
It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure
out what they are blathering about.
It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure
out what they are blathering about.
I agree but I'm not sure it would take patience so much as total lack of self respect as well as a hopeless amount of gullibility.
Speaking of ads
for I knew nothing of the facts. I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they
contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Nathaniel Macon
Monticello, January 12, 1819
Two FBI officials who
would later be assigned to the special counsel's investigation into Donald Trump's
presidential campaign described him as an "idiot" and "loathsome human" in a series of text
messages last year, according to copies released on Tuesday.
One said in an election night text that the prospect of a Trump victory was
"terrifying".
the fact that Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed gave this story a new interesting light.
Notable quotes:
"... The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server. ..."
"... The Huffington Post published my piece on Nov. 5, 2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to blame Russia for her defeat. ..."
"... I published another piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive." I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed anyway." ..."
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
This broke with the earlier principles of journalism that the Web site espoused. For instance, in 2008, Arianna Huffington
told radio host Don Debar that, "We welcome all opinions,
except conspiracy theories." She said: "Facts are sacred. That's part of our philosophy of journalism."
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is
run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April,
she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.
Before the management change, I had published several articles on the Huffington Post about Russia without controversy.
For instance, The Huffington Post published my
piece on Nov. 5,
2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the
campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to
blame Russia for her defeat.
On Dec. 12, 2016, I published another
piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive."
I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed
anyway."
After I posted an updated version of the Consortium News piece -- renamed "On the Origins of Russia-gate" -- I was informed
23 hours later by a Facebook friend that the piece had been retracted by HuffPost editors. As a reporter for mainstream media
for more than a quarter century, I know that a newsroom rule is that before the serious decision is made to retract an article the
writer is contacted to be allowed to defend the piece. This never happened. There was no due process. A HuffPost editor ignored
my email asking why it was taken down.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
"... "To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon, the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic politics. ..."
"... After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials told Moscow there would be no deal. ..."
"... "We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions." ..."
"To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign
Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon,
the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered
only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US
administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a
document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and
Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic
politics.
After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials
told Moscow there would be no deal.
"We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State
Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic
discussions."
Here you have it – a self-confession from the highest D.C. officials, that
"democracy promotion = meddling in the elections"! Oh, but that's not all:
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
"... A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests. ..."
"... Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners. ..."
"... Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing. ..."
"... Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia. ..."
"... The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party. ..."
"... According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy. ..."
"... The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect. ..."
"... There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin. ..."
"... But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines. ..."
"... the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media. ..."
"... Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik . ..."
"... At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak. ..."
"... Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails ..."
"... As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce." ..."
"... There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign. ..."
"... As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate. ..."
"... RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself. ..."
"... Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media. ..."
"... Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that. ..."
"... It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers. ..."
"... And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state? ..."
"... Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true". ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
Like the word "fascism," "censorship" is an over-used and mis-used accusation, and I usually avoid using it. But without any explanation,
I could only conclude that the decision to retract was political, not editorial.
I am non-partisan as I oppose both major parties for failing to represent millions of Americans' interests. I follow facts where
they lead. In this case, the facts led to an understanding that the Jan. 6 FBI/NSA/CIA intelligence
"assessment" on alleged Russian election interference,
prepared by what then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts, was based substantially on unvetted
opposition research and speculation, not serious intelligence work.
The assessment even made the point that the analysts were not asserting that the alleged Russian interference was a fact. The
report contained this disclaimer: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments
are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Under deadline pressure on Jan. 6, Scott Shane of The New York Times instinctively wrote what many readers of the report
must have been thinking: "What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to
back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially
amounts to 'trust us.'"
Yet, after the Jan. 6 report was published, leading Democrats asserted falsely that the "assessment" represented the consensus
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies – not just the views of "hand-picked" analysts from three – and much of the U.S. mainstream
media began treating the allegations of Russian "hacking" as fact, not as an uncertain conclusion denied by both the Russian government
and WikiLeaks, which insists that it did not get the two batches of Democratic emails from the Russian government.
Yet, because of the oft-repeated "17 intelligence agencies" canard and the mainstream media's over-hyped reporting, the public
impression has built up that the accusations against Russia are indisputable. If you ask a Russia-gate believer today what their
faith is based on, they will invariably point to the Jan. 6 assessment and mock anyone who still expresses any doubt.
For instance, an unnamed former CIA officer
toldThe Intercept
last month, "You've got all these intelligence agencies saying the Russians did the hack. To deny that is like coming out with the
theory that the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor."
That the supposedly dissident Intercept would use this quote is instructive about how unbalanced the media's reporting
on Russia-gate has been. We have film of Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor and American ships burning – and we have eyewitness
accounts of thousands of U.S. soldiers and sailors. Yet, on Russia-gate, we have only the opinions of "hand-picked" intelligence
officials who themselves admit their opinions aren't fact. No serious editor would allow a self-interested and unnamed source to
equate Russia-gate and Pearl Harbor in print.
In this atmosphere, it was easy for HuffPost editors to hear complaints from readers and blithely ban my story. But before
it was pulled, 125 people had shared it. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, then took up my cause, being the first to write about
the HuffPost censorship on his
blog. McGovern included a link to a .pdf file that I captured of the
censored
HuffPost story. It has since been republished on numerous
otherwebsites.
Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted about
it. British filmmaker and writer Tariq Ali
posted it on
his Facebook page. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams
interviewed
me at length about the censorship on their TV program. ZeroHedge wrote a widely shared
piece and someone actually took the time, 27 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact, to read the entire article on YouTube. I began
a petition to HuffPost
's Polgreen to either explain the retraction or restore the article. It has gained more than 2,000 signatures so far. If a serious
fact-check analysis was made of my article, it must exist and can and should be produced.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
But the HuffPos t's action is hardly isolated. It is part of a rapidly growing landscape of censorship of news critical
of American corporate and political leaders who are trying to defend themselves from an increasingly angry population. It's a story
as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain
at the others' expense, at home and abroad.
A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that
have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown
tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests.
America's bipartisan rulers are threatened by popular discontent from both left and right. They were alarmed by the Bernie Sanders
insurgency and by Donald Trump's victory, even if Trump is now betraying the discontented masses who voted for him by advancing tax
and health insurance plans designed to further crush them and benefit the rich.
Trump's false campaign promises will only make the rulers' problem of controlling a restless population more difficult. Americans
are subjected to economic inequality greater than in the first Gilded Age. They are also subjected today to more war than in the
first Gilded Age, which led to the launch of American overseas empire. Today American rulers are engaged in multiple conflicts following
decades of post-World War II invasions and coups to expand their global interests.
People with wealth and power always seem to be nervous about losing both. So plutocrats use the concentrated media they own to
suppress news critical of their wars and domestic repression. For example, almost nothing was reported about militarized police forces
until the story broke out into the open in the Ferguson protests and now the story has been buried again.
Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles.
Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report
from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners.
To operate in this media structure, most journalists know to excise out the historical context of America's wars of domination.
They know to uncritically accept American officials' bromides about spreading democracy, while hiding the real war aims.
Examples abound: America's
role in the Ukraine coup was denied or downplayed; a British parliamentary report exposing American lies that led to the destruction
of Libya was suppressed
; and most infamously, the media promoted the WMD hoax and the fable of "bringing democracy" to Iraq, leading to the illegal invasion
and devastation of that country. A recent example from November is a 60 Minutesreport on the Saudi
destruction of Yemen, conspicuously failing to mention America's crucial role in the carnage.
I've pitched numerous news stories critical of U.S. foreign policy to a major American newspaper that were rejected or changed
in the editorial process. One example is the declassified Defense Intelligence Agency
document of August 2012 that accurately predicted the rise of the Islamic State two years later.
The document, which I confirmed with a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. and its Turkish, European and Gulf Arab allies, were
supporting the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria to put pressure on the Syrian government, but the document
warned that this Salafist base could turn into an "Islamic State."
But such a story would undermine the U.S. government's "war on terrorism" narrative by revealing that the U.S.-backed strategy
actually was risking the expansion of jihadist-held territory in Syria. The story was twice rejected by my editors and to my knowledge
has never appeared in corporate media.
Another story rejected in June 2012, just a year into the Syrian war, was about Russia's motives in Syria being guided by a desire
to defeat the growing jihadist threat there. Corporate media wanted to keep the myth of Russia's "imperial" aims in Syria alive.
I had to publish the article
outside the U.S., in a South African daily newspaper.
In September 2015 at the U.N. General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin
confirmed my story about
Russia's motives in Syria to stop jihadists from taking over. Putin invited the U.S. to join this effort as Moscow was about to launch
its military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration, still insisting on "regime change"
in Syria, refused. And the U.S. corporate media continued promoting the myth that Russia intervened to recapture its "imperial glory."
It was much easier to promote the "imperial" narrative than report Putin's clear
explanation to French TV channel TF1, which was not picked
up by American media.
"Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western
partners' forces?" Putin said. "These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d'Azur,
for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same
from happening in Syria."
But don't take Putin's word for it. Then Secretary of State John Kerry knew why Russia intervened. In a
leaked audio conversation with Syrian opposition figures
in September 2016, Kerry said: "The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the possibility
of going to Damascus, and that's why Russia came in because they didn't want a Daesh government and they supported Assad."
Kerry admitted that rather than seriously fight the Islamic State in Syria, the U.S. was ready to use its growing strength to
pressure Assad to resign, just as the DIA document that I was unable to report said it would. "We know that this was growing, we
were watching, we saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably
manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." Kerry's comment suggests that the
U.S. was willing to risk the Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to force out Assad.
Where are independent-minded Western journalists to turn if their stories critical of the U.S. government and corporations are
suppressed? The imperative is to get these stories out – and Russian media has provided an opening. But this has presented a new
problem for the plutocracy. The suppression of critical news in their corporate-owned media is no longer working if it's seeping
out in Russian media and through dissident Western news sites.
Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and
viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing.
As a Russian-government-financed English-language news channel, RT also gives a Russian perspective on the news, the way CNN and
The New York Times give an American perspective and the BBC a British one. American mainstream journalists, from my experience,
arrogantly deny suppressing news and believe they present a universal perspective, rather than a narrow American view of the world.
The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although
the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view. It's
impossible to do so without those voices included. Routinely or systematically shutting them out also dehumanizes people in those
countries, making it easier to gain popular support to go to war against them.
Russia is scapegoated by charging that RT or Sputnik are sowing divisions in the U.S. by focusing on issues like homelessness,
racism, or out-of-control militarized police forces, as if these divisive issues didn't already exist. The U.S. mainstream media
also seems to forget that the U.S. government has engaged in at least 70 years of interference in other countries' elections, foreign
invasions, coups, planting stories in foreign media and cyber-warfare, which Russian media crucially points out.
Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for
"successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully
democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia.
The overriding point about the "Russian propaganda" complaint is that when America's democratic institutions, including the press
and the electoral process, are crumbling under the weight of corruption that the American elites have created or maintained, someone
else needs to be blamed.
The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an
attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of
all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials
say they
want a third party.
According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views
of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and
civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy.
The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political
protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence
agencies were in essence created to protect.
There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that
long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under
the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader
in Moscow. There is substance
to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin.
Moscow sees an aggressive America expanding NATO and putting 30,000 NATO troops on its borders; trying to overthrow a secular
ally in Syria with terrorists who threaten Russia itself; backing a coup in Ukraine as a possible prelude to moves against Russia;
and using American NGOs to foment unrest inside Russia before they were forced to register as foreign agents.
The Constitution prohibits government from prior-restraint, or censorship, though such tactics were imposed, largely unchallenged,
during the two world wars. American newspapers voluntarily agreed to censor themselves in the Second World War before the government
dictated it.
In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said he didn't "desire to reestablish wartime censorship" and instead asked the press
for self-censorship. He largely got it until the papers began reporting American battlefield losses. On July 25, 1950, "the army
ordered that reporters were not allowed to publish 'unwarranted' criticism of command decisions, and that the army would be 'the
sole judge and jury' on what 'unwarranted' criticism entailed," according to a Yale University
study on military censorship.
After excellent on-the-ground reporting from Vietnam brought the war home to America, the military reacted by instituting, initially
in the first Gulf War, serious control of the press by "embedding" reporters from private media companies. They accepted the arrangement,
much as World War II newspapers censored themselves.
It is important to realize that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, including the media. It is not illegal
for them to practice censorship. I never made a First Amendment argument against the HuffPost , for instance. However, under
pressure from Washington, even in peacetime, media companies can do the government's dirty work to censor or limit free speech for
the government.
In the past few weeks, we've seen an acceleration of attempts by corporations to inhibit Russian media in the U.S. Both Google
and Facebook, which dominate the Web with more than 50 percent of ad revenue, were at first resistant to government pressure to censor
"Russian propaganda." But they are coming around.
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company,
said on Nov. 18 that Google would "derank" articles from RT and Sputnik in the Google searches, making the stories harder for
readers to find. The billionaire Schmidt claimed Russian information can be "repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have
been weaponized," he said. That is how factual news critical of U.S. corporate and political leadership is seen by them: as a weapon
threatening their rule.
"My own view is that these patterns can be detected, and that they can be taken down or deprioritized," Schmidt said. Though Google would essentially be hiding news produced by RT and Sputnik , Schmidt is sensitive to the charge of censorship,
even though there's nothing legally to stop him. "We don't want to ban the sites. That's not how we operate," Schmidt said cynically. "I am strongly not in favor of censorship.
I am very strongly in favor of ranking. It's what we do."
But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't
follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western
narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off
of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines.
Responding to a deadline from Congress to act, Facebook on Nov. 22 announced that it would inform users if they have been "targeted"
by Russian "propaganda." Facebook's help center will tell users if they liked or shared ads allegedly from the St. Petersburg-based
Internet Research Agency, which supposedly bought $100,000 in ads over a two-year period, with more than half these ads coming after
the 2016 U.S. election and many not related to politics.
The $100,000 sum over two years compares to Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue. Plus, Facebook only says it "believes" or
it's "likely" that the ads came from that firm, whose links to the Kremlin also have yet to be proved.
Facebook described the move as "part of our ongoing effort to protect our platforms and the people who use them from bad actors
who try to undermine our democracy." Congress wants more from Facebook, so it will not be surprising if users will eventually be
alerted to Russian media reports as "propaganda" in the future.
While the government can't openly shut down a news site, the Federal Communications Commission's
upcoming vote on whether to deregulate
the Internet by ending net neutrality will free private Internet companies in the U.S. to further marginalize Russian and dissident
websites by slowing them down and thus discouraging readers from viewing them.
Likewise, as the U.S. government doesn't want to be openly seen shutting down RT operations, it is working around the edges to
accomplish that.
After the Department of Justice forced, under threat of arrest, RT to register its employees as foreign agents under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act , State Department spokeswoman Heather Nuaert said that "FARA does not police the content of information
disseminated, does not limit the publication of information or advocacy materials, and does not restrict an organization's ability
to operate." She'd earlier said that registering would not "impact or affect the ability of them to report news and information.
We just have them register. It's as simple as that."
The day after Nuaert spoke the Congressional press office
stripped RT correspondents of their
Capitol Hill press passes, citing the FARA registration. "The rules of the Galleries state clearly that news credentials may not
be issued to any applicant employed 'by any foreign government or representative thereof.' Upon its registration as a foreign agent
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), RT Network became ineligible to hold news credentials," read the letter to RT.
But Russia-gate faithful ignore these aggressive moves and issue calls for even harsher action. After forcing RT to register,
Keir Giles, a Chatham House senior consulting fellow, acted as though it never happened. He said in a Council on Foreign Relations
Cyber Brief on Nov. 27: "Although the Trump administration seems unlikely to pursue action against Russian information operations,
there are steps the U.S. Congress and other governments should consider."
I commented on this development on RT America. It would
also have been good to have the State Department's Nuaert answer for this discrepancy about the claim that forced FARA registrations
would not affect news gathering when it already has. My criticism of RT is that they should be interviewing U.S. decision-makers
to hold them accountable, rather than mostly guests outside the power structure. The decision-makers could be called out on air if
they refuse to appear.
Western rulers' wariness about popular unrest can be seen in the extraordinary and scurrilous attack on the Canadian website
globalresearch.ca . It began with a chilling study by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization into the relatively obscure website, followed by a vicious
hit piece
on Nov. 18 by the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest newspaper. The headline was: "How a Canadian website is being used to amplify
the Kremlin's view of the world."
"What once appeared to be a relatively harmless online refuge for conspiracy theorists is now seen by NATO's information warfare
specialists as a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media – as well as the North American
and European public's trust in government and public institutions," the Globe and Mail reported.
"Global Research is viewed by NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence – or
StratCom – as playing a
key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed
by the Kremlin, in particular, and the Assad regime." The website never knew it had such powers. I've not agreed with everything I've read on the site. But it is a useful clearinghouse for alternative media. Numerous Consortium News articles are republished there, including a handful of mine. But the site's typical sharing and
reposting on the Internet is seen by NATO as a plot to undermine the Free World.
"It uses that reach to push not only its own opinion pieces, but 'news' reports from little-known websites that regularly carry
dubious or false information," the he Globe and Mail reported. " At times, the site's regular variety of international-affairs
stories is replaced with a flurry of items that bolster dubious reportage with a series of opinion pieces, promoted on social media
and retweeted and shared by active bots."
The newspaper continued, "'That way, they increase the Google ranking of the story and create the illusion of multi-source verification,'
said Donara Barojan, who does digital forensic research for [StratCom]. But she said she did not yet have proof that Global Research
is connected to any government."
This sort of smear is nothing more than a blatant attack on free speech by the most powerful military alliance in the world, based
on the unfounded conviction that Russia is a fundamental force for evil and that anyone who has contacts with Russia or shares even
a part of its multilateral world view is suspect.
Such tactics are spreading to Europe. La Repubblica newspaper in Italy wrote a similar hit piece against
L'Antidiplomatico, a dissident website. And the European Union is spending
€3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media.
High-profile individuals in the U.S. are also now in the crosshairs of the neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. On Nov. 25 The Washington
Post ran a nasty hit piece on Washington Capitals' hockey player Alex Ovechkin, one of the most revered sports figures in the
Washington area, simply because he, like
86 percent of other Russians , supports his president.
"Alex Ovechkin is one of Putin's biggest fans. The question is, why?" ran the headline. The story insidiously implied that Ovechkin
was a dupe of his own president, being used to set up a media campaign to support Putin, who is under fierce and relentless attack
in the United States where Ovechkin plays professional ice hockey.
"He has given an unwavering endorsement to a man who U.S. intelligence agencies say sanctioned Russian meddling in last year's
presidential election," write the Post reporters, once again showing their gullibility to U.S. intelligence agencies that have provided
no proof for their assertions (and even admit that they are not asserting their opinion as fact).
Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for
it, was
kicked
off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show
on Radio Sputnik .
At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist
Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to
prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled
territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak.
But as a consequence the club director said its funding was slashed from the Swiss government.
Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate
media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies,
Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and
lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic
emails.
There will likely be more indictments from Mueller, even perhaps a complaint about Trump committing obstruction of justice because
he said on TV that he fired Comey, in part, because of the "Russia thing." But Trump's clumsy reaction to the "scandal," which he
calls "fake news" and a "witch hunt," still is not proof that Putin and the Russians interfered in the U.S. election to achieve the
unlikely outcome of Trump's victory.
The Russia-gate faithful assured us to wait for the indictment of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But again there was nothing about pre-election "collusion," only charges that Flynn had lied to the FBI about conversations
with the Russian ambassador regarding policy matters during the presidential transition, i.e., after the election.
One of Flynn's conversations was about trying unsuccessfully to comply with an Israeli request to get Russia to block a United
Nations resolution censuring Israel's settlements on Palestinian land.
As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia.
But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce."
The media is becoming a victim of its own mania. In its zeal to push this story reporters are making a
huge number of amateurish mistakes on stories that are later corrected. Brian Ross of ABC News was
suspended for erroneously reporting that Trump had told Flynn to contact the Russians before the election, and not after.
There remain a number of key hurdles to prove the Russia-gate story. First, convincing evidence is needed that the Russian government
indeed did "hack" the Democratic emails, both those of the DNC and Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – and gave them to WikiLeaks.
Then it must be linked somehow to the Trump campaign. If it were a Russian hack it would have been an intelligence operation on a
need-to-know basis, and no one in the Trump team needed to know. It's not clear how any campaign member could have even helped with
an overseas hack or could have been an intermediary to WikiLeaks.
There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC
tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street,
which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign
donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not
considered decisive in the campaign.
Clinton principally pinned her loss on FBI Director James Comey for closing and then reopening the investigation into her
improper use of a private email server while Secretary of State. She also spread the blame to
Russia (repeating
the canard about "seventeen [U.S. intelligence] agencies, all in agreement"), Bernie Sanders, the inept DNC and other factors.
As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor
in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate.
That RT and Sputnik ran pieces critical of Hillary
Clinton was their right, and they were hardly alone. RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to
Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets,
which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns
about Clinton's private email server.
Another vague Russia-gate suspicion stemming largely from Steele's opposition research is that somehow Russia bribed or blackmailed
Trump because of past business with Russians. But there are evidentiary and logical problems with these theories, since
some lucrative deals fell
through (and presumably wouldn't have if Trump was being paid off).
Some have questioned how Trump could have supported detente with Russia without being beholden to Moscow in some way. But Jeffrey
Sommers, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, wrote a
convincing essay explaining adviser Steve Bannon's influence
on Trump's thinking about Russia and the need for cooperation between the two powers to solve international problems.
Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid
the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself.
An earlier version of this story appeared onConsortium News.
Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and
the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR
Books in June 2017. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at
@unjoe .
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is run by Lydia Polgreen,
a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April, she completely redesigned the
site and renamed it HuffPost.
" It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge
of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad. "
This is exactly what Howard Zinn writes. Alas it is the same at this side of the Atlantic. The British newspaper Guardian was
independent, Soros bought it. Dutch official 'news' is just government propaganda.
But also most Dutch dicussion sites are severely biased, criticism of Israel is next to impossible. And of course the words
'populist' and 'extreme right' are propaganda words, used for those who oppose mainstream politics: EU, euro, globalisation, unlimited
immigration, etc.
Despite all these measures and censorship, including self censorship, dissident political parties grow stronger and stronger.
One could see this in the French presidential elections, one sees it in Germany where AfD now is in parliament, the Reichstag,
one sees it in Austria, where the nationalist party got about half the votes, one sees it in countries as Poland and Hungary,
that want to keep their cultures. And of course there is Brexit 'we want our country back'.
In the Netherlands the in October 2016 founded party FvD, Forum for Democracy, got two seats in the last elections, but polls
show that if now elections were held, it would have some fourteen seats in our parliament of 150. The present ruling coalition,
led by Rutte, has very narrow margins, both in parliament and what here is called Eerste Kamer.
Parliament maybe can be seen as House, Eerste Kamer as Senate. There is a good chance that at the next Eerste Kamer elections
FvD will be able to end the reign of Rutte, who is, in my opinion, just Chairman of the Advance Rutte Foundation, and of course
a stiff supporter of Merkel and Brussels. Now that the end of Merkel is at the horizon, I'm curious how Rutte will manoevre.
"The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media
although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points
of view" -- Joe Lauria
Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT
Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans"
along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media.
It"s true, of course, that the viewpoints of North Koreans go unreported in MSM, but that's hardly the "whole truth and nothing
but the truth." The problems confronting any journalist who might endeavor to report on public opinion in North Korea are incomparably
more difficult than the problems confronting attempts to report on public opinion in Iran, in Russia or in Palestine. These three
"theaters" -- so to speak –each with its own challenges, no doubt, should never be conflated with the severe realities of censorship
and even forceful thought policing in North Korea.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined
to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil
Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely
to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.
I'm not even sure that they believe in Russia-gate. This could easily be cowardice or corruption. The globalists have poured
untold millions into "fixing" the Internet wrongthink so it's only natural that we're seeing results. I'm seeing "grassroots"
shilling everywhere, for instance.
This is not going to work for them. You can't force consent of the governed. The more you squeeze, the more sand slips through
your fingers.
It is worse than censorship. History, via web searches, are being deleted. Now, you have no hint what is missing. Example, in
1999 I read an article in a weekly tech newspaper – maybe Information Week – about university researchers who discovered that
64 bit encrypted phones were only using the first 56 bits and the last 8 were zeros. They suspected that the US government was
responsible. Cannot find any reference to that online.
Joe Lauria may very well be a "victim", but certainly not one that I would parade around as some USDA table grade poster child
victim of really egregious reprisals. He's a veteran in the establishment MSM milieu and certainly knew what kind of a shit bird
operation it is that he chose to attempt to publish his piece in.
Oh, lest I forget to mention, he didn't lose his livelihood, get ejected from his gym, have his country club membership revoked,
get banned from AirB&B ad nauseum.
It is an interesting article. I am curious about the '17 intellience agencies' thing, CIA, FBI, NSA, army and navy
intel units, well that is making five or so. The latter two would likely having no connection with checking the 'Russia was hacking
the election', likewise, air force sigint (which they obviously need and have). So, a list from a poster who is expert on the
topic, what are the seventeen agencies which were agreeing on vicious Vlad having 'hacked' poor Hillary's campaign?
Is anybody knowing? This is a very real, good, and serious question, from me, and have not seeing it before. Can anybody producing
a list of the seventeen agencies? Parodic replies welcome, but it would be of interest to many if somebody could making a list
of the seventeen lurching about in Hillary's addled mind.
We're witnessing a huge closing of the American Liberal secular mind. There used to be secular liberal hard copy magazines like
the Atlantic Magazine that published intelligent well written articles and commentary about foreign affairs, immigration, Islam
from a principled secular, Liberal perspective – especially in the early 1990s. That's pretty much gone now as The Atlantic is
mostly just a blog that puts out the party line. There are still, thankfully a few exceptions like
Your article seemed otherwise good, but lacked any humor early on to keep me reading. After all, it is 6000 words! I have a job,
family, obligations, other readings, and only so much thinking energy in a day. I think You might try shortening such articles
to maybe 2000 – 3000 words? Like I said though, You did present some good ideas.
Mark James' modified limited hangout shows us the true purpose of his ICCPR-illegal statist war propaganda. James candidly jettisons
Hillary, acknowledging the obvious, that she was the more repulsive choice in this duel of the titans. But James is still hanging
on to the crucial residual message of the CIA line: Putin tripleplus bad.
Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize
him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's
cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats
CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption
and subversion. Russians appreciate that.
James fantasizes that Putin is going to get ousted and murdered. However Putin has public approval that US politicians couldn't
dream of. This is because Russia's government meets world human rights standards that the US fails to meet. The Russian government
complies with the Paris Principles, world standard for institutionalized human rights protection under expert international review.
The USA does not. The USA is simply not is Russia's league with respect to universally-acknowledged rights.
James can easily verify this by comparing the US human-rights deficiencies to corresponding Russian reviews, point-by-point,
based on each article of the core human rights conventions.
Comprehensive international human rights review shows that the USA is not in Russia's league. Look at the maps if you can't
be bothered to read the particulars – they put the US in an underdeveloped backwater with headchopping Arab princelings and a
couple African presidents-for-life. CIA's INGSOC fixation on Putin is intended to divert your attention from the objectively superior
human-rights performance of the Russian government as a whole, and the USA's failure and disgrace in public in Geneva, front of
the whole world.
How did this happen? Turns out, dismantling the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now we see it's time to take the USA apart
and do the same for America. That's the origin of the panic you can smell on the CIA regime.
There is censorship on blogs.
> I have been banned from The Atlantic blog for correcting a noted anti-Iran blogger.
> I have been banned from the National Interest blog for highlighting Pentagon's acquisition problems.
> I have been banned by Facebook for declaring that females don't belong in the infantry. I "violated community standards" with
my opinion which was based somewhat on my time in the infantry, which my PC critic probably lacked.
In hindsight I wish I would have made a list of sites where I was banned, some of them several times. In the USA Washpost and
Christian Science Monitor, both sites were abolished, I suppose because censorship and banning became too expensive.
In UK War Without End was was one of the very few sites where was no censorship, UK laws forced the owner to close down. The
site was near impossible to hack, the owner had a hand built interface in Linux between incoming messages and the site itself.
At present there is not one more or less serious Dutch site where I can write.
On top of that, most Dutch sites no longer exist, especially those operated by newspapers.
It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the
prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence
of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles.
Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers.
Your post is exactly what I wanted to write. Saved me the effort. I figured out the MSM was nothing but lies around 1966. I
have no sympathy for any MSM journalist.
Wouldn't it be scary if a nation's central bank was controlled and run by a group pretending to be loyal to their host nation,
but was actually in league with a nation that was trying to gobble up huge chunks of ME land, doing this by controlling the host
nation's media outlets, and forever posting psyop stories and actual lies to support the land thefts?
And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would
then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip
of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more
wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state?
Yes, it would be scary to live in a tyrant state like that.
Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However,
everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true".
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. ..."
FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that
would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
What exactly MI6 put in Steele dossier is true and what is lie is unclear. What is clear that
Steele himself cant; collect information of this type and at this level. He is just a low level
intelligence patsy. Even to invent all this staff he definitely relied on his MI6 source(s) which
may have a specific agenda and might be guided form Washington. Brennan was a well known Hillary
sympathizer has had huge influence on Obama and definitely capable of playing dirty tricks with
Trump. What is interesting that in FBI the dossier was handled by counterintelligence official who by
his job description should have very close contacts with CIA
The revelation came one day after the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard
Burr, told reporters that the committee had been working "backwards" to examine the memos as
part of its separate but parallel investigation into Russia's election meddling.
The memos were compiled into a dossier by veteran British spy Christopher Steele, who was
hired by a Washington, DC-based opposition research firm in June 2016 to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia. The firm, Fusion GPS, was first hired by unspecified anti-Trump
Republicans in late 2015. Democrats took over funding for the firm's work after Trump won the
GOP nomination.
all talk and smoking guns. never one question answered. If we were on that stand we would
have to answer not mumble and use legal jargon. sick of the whole mess.
Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the
FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being
run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey.
Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that
position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President
Trump. This smells bad.
FBI-SIS Comey the leaker and the Agents that play the game. The DNC Russia dossier is the
ball that Comey pushed down the hill. Swamp needs to be drained.
So it is the fault of the president that the FBI reputation is in tatters . NO. It is the
fault of the FBI. Here in Europe we are laughing at the FBI and their reputation. Drain your
swamp which includes the FBI and CIA
I realized the FBI is corrupt when Comey testified before Congress. It is time to put all
FBI employees to be given lie detector tests. DITTO the CIA, NSA and all US intelligence
agencies. It might not be a bad idea to do the same for Pentagon and White House employees.
Extreme, maybe, but something isn't Kosher here.
Politics has truly become a children's game. Both sides are playing extremely biased
opposing enemy positions. Both sides scream nonsense at one another, neither side will
listen, and talking is out of the question. Both sides are shooting, but nobody gets shot.
Everybody is playing, but nobody is doing anything. Everybody has been caught out, but they
all keep playing. This is the never ending game with no rules except "hate Russia" that we
call "hate Russia." What do we need to do...ring the dinner bell? Come on Trump, you've won,
put them all in jail, and let's have pizza! Merry Christmas!
this government has gone way beyond investigations, it is infested with ...globalist
cockroaches and needs an exterminator. we need a military take down of this government with
Trump in command to deal with the infestation. with a take over they could then look at
everyone in government and bring charges for their attempted coups and subversion of our duly
elected president not to mention all the criminal deals and actions that made them millions,
then can charge and punish them as their charges imply ... this is serious, the government is
FUBAR...semper-fi..
Someone needs to get their hand on all the documents and other materials Obama had taken
out of the White House before he even left office. It was done under the guise that these
documents were for his Library and were going to be stored until the "library was built. This
is unprecedented and requires further journalistic scrutiny!
I would like to ask Tom Fuentes, (who is a regular on CNN), what are his thoughts about
COINTELPRO? What about Mark Felt during Nixon? After all, he claims that the FBI was squeaky
clean up to Comey. He's a lying douche bag.
"... He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home. ..."
"... First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night party. ..."
"... Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email. ..."
"... Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the Mueller investigation shut down, told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club." ..."
"... Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come with the probe reaching closer to the president. ..."
One of special counsel Robert Mueller's top investigators has come under fire from
conservatives.
That investigator, Andrew Weissmann, one of the team's most prominent members, sent an
email to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates praising her for not defending the Trump
administration's travel ban.
He also reportedly attended 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's
election-night party.
The investigator dubbed as special counsel Robert Mueller's "pit bull" by The New
York Times has come under fire for perceived bias against President Donald Trump.
That investigator, Andrew Weissmann, was reportedly in attendance at former Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's election night party last year at the Jacob K. Javits
Center in New York City,
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The revelation came days after the conservative
group,
Judicial Watch , published an email he sent to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates
praising her for refusing to defend Trump's controversial travel ban in January.
"If it's true that Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary's victory party, this is getting out of
hand," tweeted Ari Fleischer , who
served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush.
Weissmann is one of
the most prominent investigators on Mueller's team.
Considered to be an expert on flipping "defendants into collaborators -- with either
tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective," as The Times wrote in
October, Weissmann is the investigation's "pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit bull with two
Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies
that includes professional killers and white-collar criminals."
The prosecutor made a name for himself in high-profile cases involving New York's mob bosses
and at the turn of the century in the Enron scandal. He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid
in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home.
"If there's something to find, he'll find it," Katya Jestin, who used to work with Weissmann
in the US attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, told The Times. "If there's
nothing there, he's not going to cook something up."
Weissmann comes under fire
But following the revelation that one top investigator on Mueller's team, Peter Strzok, had
been reassigned from the special counsel's team after he apparently sent anti-Trump text
messages during the 2016 election, Republicans began taking aim at Weissmann as the latest
example of an investigator biased against the president.
First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so
proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon
followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night
party.
In a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, during which FBI Director Christopher
Wray was testifying, Republican Rep. Steve Chabot called "the depths of this anti-Trump bias
on" the special counsel's team "absolutely shocking."
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch,
asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably
compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email.
"Shut it down," he said.
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the
Mueller investigation shut down,
told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club."
Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and
individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come
with the probe reaching closer to the president.
Already, Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two of the most
prominent members of Trump's campaign, have been charged as part of the Russia investigation.
Manafort's associate, Rick Gates, was also charged, as was early Trump campaign foreign-policy
adviser George Papadopoulos.
Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to 12 counts including money laundering and conspiracy
against the US, and Flynn pleaded guilty on December 1 to one count of making false statements
to investigators about his contacts with Russians. Papadopoulos also pleaded guilty in July to
lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia-linked individuals.
"I predict that these attacks on the FBI will grow louder and more brazen as the special
counsel does his work, and the walls close in around the president, and evidence of his
obstruction and other misdeeds becomes more apparent," Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York,
recently promoted to ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said during Thursday's
hearing.
Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the
FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being
run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey.
Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that
position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President
Trump. This smells bad.
Why do these guys continue to pretend that Rod Rosenstein is ever going to oppose anything
involving Mueller or Comey, and why hasn't anyone removed that little criminal McCabe
yet?
No one is talking about the Regional offices of the FBI. I would imagine, 40-60 percent of
ALL adult Americans, after watching James Comey lay out the crimes of Hillary Clinton, then
say "OH, but we're not prosecuting her, because she didn't mean to do it". That is when
Americans said "WTF!". Every Criminal says they didn't mean to do it. Think about it, next
time you get ticketed for speeding, make sure to tell the Judge, there was no specific intent
to speed, therefore you can't prosecute. Not only the above, but now you have Michael Flynn
being bankrupted, and he pleads guilty because he ran out of money, and his family couldn't
take it anymore. That's now a win in this country. Pleads to a lie during an ambush interview
by an obviously bias'd white Knight FBI agent Peter Stroke. While Huma Abedin and Shirley
Mills get immunity deals...
LT. GEN. Flynn has his life ruined for being politically ambushed by the FBI and caught in
a LIE. HILLARY lies to Congress, The FBI, The American People and is out signing books. A 5'
7" pile of dung!! Memo to President Trump.....Pardon GENERAL FLYNN.
There never was Russian collusion on the trump side, now we know the corruption of the FBI
with the Obama and Clinton cabal. It's time to execute a lawful end to this mess. These
people all thought Hillary was in and really messed up in trying to cover their tracks. It is
all going to come out now. Some of these people will get executed and rightfully so.
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic
journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented
an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with
all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was
their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.
The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There
was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse
post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill
articles from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have
a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the
political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas
and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia
in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported
the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave
..
I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the
Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive
in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a
'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth
the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on
MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank
videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original
being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to Ł1,000 an hour to appear
on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their
ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear
not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed
outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a
French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's
evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant
in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders
for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is
baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst
it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy
to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell
us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the
Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
When a Department of Defense intelligence
report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't
know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that
Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of
backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.
Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in
August 2014.
The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a
nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World
Trade Center?
It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it
was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information
lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until
six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before
dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of
Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than
hostile.
But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report,
attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts
agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.
After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter
C.J. Chivers
wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and
the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."
Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut,
assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while,
not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a
pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.
"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."
And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington,
which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian
Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was
completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a
classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular
Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."
Assessing the Damage
Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to
reduce an entire nation to rubble.
First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime
imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating
Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was
concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with
assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it
could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.
William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus
urged
Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of
Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to
playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.
A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department
memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries
in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts
at 2:07 .)
Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to
install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck
Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their
own.
Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian
chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong.
With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there
was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.
Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer
in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead
instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both
unavoidable and far from entirely negative.
"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized
for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to
the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic
world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed
regime."
So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist
surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver
linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than
their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside
bombs."
The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic
defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the
seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.
"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article
concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict
that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame
the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."
Deals with the Devil
The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The
good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not
have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the
viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his
piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away
like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that
counts.
The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the
opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."
Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern
Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist
principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known
as Deir ez-Zor).
Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine
Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers
to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic
depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni
extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and
Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people,
any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for
three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran
unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy
adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from
Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."
With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.
Disastrous Thinking
Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is
hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive,
400,000
Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million
displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy
(left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot
from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250
billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million
people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria,
the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North
America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still
struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of
U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.
So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East
is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian
influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now
seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is
lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore
up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.
It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy
establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has
moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder
and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee
defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic
critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings
and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic
terrorism.
Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do
it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm
I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming
the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that
peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of
central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US
and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will
slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.
The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day
now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has
already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5
years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US
dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion
debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am
Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes
the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't
think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and
stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington
don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.
Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is
peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the
Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's
sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's
Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as
Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser,
Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then
terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.)
goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)
Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting
to create chaos, probably both.
Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73
years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)
Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad
was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said
that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90%
of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it
wanted.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am
CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of
them.
One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads
further.
Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am
Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the
NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It
could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to
transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."
It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always
presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war
INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what
state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let
alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first
Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his
military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion
in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to
rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the
U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the
people!
Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he
always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed;
being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and
end of an article.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm
What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests
within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're
now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine
battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of
my head.
Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch
hunt.
The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures
towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain
to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S.
politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they
easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber
rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the
careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making
peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.
Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply
concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total
negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the
Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you
use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile
coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".
This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being
reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will
end.
How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it
doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC,
Washington and Berlin.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel
was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes
ever more despicably obvious.
The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions
to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New
York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace,
calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for
Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support
from the Trump regime.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed
Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far
he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist
cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).
I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace
with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of
detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for
it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It
was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations
with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the
military-industrial-complex.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to
fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive
toys are falling out of the sky in droves.
Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the
"mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve"
jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.
Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally
false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to
protect them.
Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also
impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some
400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including
Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are
equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.
Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.
Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't
seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the
region, can they?
Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're
the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when
there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say:
Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all.
The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.
mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is
evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their
own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand
what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil
does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are
destroying our world.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am
Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that
Putin and Russia are the evil ones'
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm
One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect
sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to
deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that
"evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not
like.
Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)
On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked
intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria
were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which
has now claimed half a million lives.
Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March
of 2013.
The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct
role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and
civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in
Syria.
Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and
Saudis coordinate their activities.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm
An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya
to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist
groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq,
which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence
would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world
entering into Iraqi Arena."
The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this
is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought
the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and
Iran support the regime."
The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and
Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality"
(State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and
specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply
channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged
through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of
Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply
lines.
The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against
Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started
working overtime.
The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical
incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First
Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm
In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA
report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as
Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."
Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head
program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the
rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the
result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't
listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision."
Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the
Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud
key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did
the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while
acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added
that "the intelligence was very clear."
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence
official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria
knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on
the Syrian regime:
Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups
[Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're
worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"
Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the
accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."
Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his
own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.
Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked
groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama
bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of
Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense
Intelligence Agency
"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in
particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the
narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly
warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings
which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were
producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the
covert program in Syria.
"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence
officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as
a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA
Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide
assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually
emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity
desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as
'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple
Assad.
"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a
coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo
were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an
opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase
in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying
themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham.
"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed
that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led
ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the
commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact.
Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani,
himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."
"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an
invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic
fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).
"The plan involved the following steps:
sweep away a strong secular Arab state with a political culture, armed forces and
security services;
generate total chaos and horror in Syria that would justify the creation of Israel's
'security zone', not only in Golan Heights, but also further north;
start a civil war in Lebanon and incite takfiri violence against Hezbollah, leading
to them both bleeding to death and then create a "security zone", this time in Lebanon;
prevent the creation of a "Shiite axis" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon;
continue the division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, establish an
independent Kurdistan and then to use them against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
give Israel the opportunity to become the unquestioned major player in the region and
force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to apply for permission from Israel
in order to implement any oil and gas projects;
gradually isolate, threaten, undermine and ultimately attack Iran with a wide
regional coalition, removing all Shiite centers of power in the middle East.
"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United
States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government
has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost
defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the
Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent
attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.
"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack
Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this
is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past
spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain,
are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.
"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites,
turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are
now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak
armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities,
especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the
'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one
simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.
"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or
Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis
are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic:
initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces
of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The
US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just
can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the
Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the
US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of
provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about
destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]
"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and
the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains
to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."
The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to
Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the
suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no
one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.
That it
conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no
dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's
comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course,
there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to
dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm
There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the
Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade
Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did
nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.
A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity,
scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said,
"is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad
idea.
Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led
intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has
taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been
an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.
The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That
is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the
CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to
AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has
been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.
Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?).
However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who
clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet
over Syria.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am
The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the
Salafist Islamic state with alarm.
B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE
INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND
IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME,
WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).
D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN
MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE
JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION
WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN
REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed
that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian
leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in
control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we
were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me.
'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State
inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama
administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'
j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am
Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take
much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support
for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward
alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.
Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm
I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding
the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran,
in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint
Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.
jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back
to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on
9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of
Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" –
covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is
highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.
One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist
fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern
Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali
– the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the
past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet
unknown.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the
marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create
internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US,
who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist
including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.
Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.
j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there
any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything
other than geopolitical objectives.
David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value
of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief
that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately
benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got
going on Obama's watch.
Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without
sufficient evidence.
Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering
for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it
wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the
exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of
course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking
his cabinet.
All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no
business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of
humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in
destroying life on Earth.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that
anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that
trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the
industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.
Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm
That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He
appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if
you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his
adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:
The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was
achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the
Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated
military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.
Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when
Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the
consequences of this conspiracy of silence.
The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars
and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate
people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have
been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well.
Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to
think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long
enough and it becomes the truth.
It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans
are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths
smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free
thought.
Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly
hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal
interest.
The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major
incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large
collection of links for compiled evidence:
http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292
triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda
news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy
of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global
hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without
question, in the face of many unanswered questions.
Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who
would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but
stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl
Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W
took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden
(CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We
accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who
attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire
would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a
"conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated
Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am
You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy
on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't
the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?
So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of
money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war.
It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In
fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not
posting any comments here, either.
Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the
terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of
believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?
Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am
Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards
Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass
tacks.
The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing
but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces
got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold.
First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in
1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve
out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà
..there she was.
So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing
comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a
country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully
manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are
still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and
total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.
Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment.
Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I
would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me,
that means hitting my knees.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other
people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living
arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving
middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a
sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether
the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and
standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security
state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately
characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you
need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so
competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts
is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population,
not selling out to vultures.
It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in
this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy
of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific
numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West
control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was
purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were
known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against
our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill
should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and
twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR
that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking
about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.
BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in
the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy
for the Realm".
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am
Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the
federal budget.
US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be
professional competence.
For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack
all who disagree.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare."
Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in
saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to
Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies
with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where
we supported extremists is evidence enough.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by
our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.
Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am
I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US
imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy
entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand
that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the
next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No!
US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate
the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private
profit.
There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many
others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host"
dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war
strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria
AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the
executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies
because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized,
established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes,
allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They
are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist
state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.
Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends
all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire
nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate
any obstacles to its domination.
No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the
US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has
recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and
destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and
destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist,
bourgeois industrial development on any level.
Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we
are in the dark.
Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am
Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government
to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's
enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy
states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria
and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic
consequences.
Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any
global ethical calculus.
Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of
Israel have their work cut out for them.
This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead
of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.
Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm
A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively
interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also
accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.
A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an
Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to
the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the
episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from
carrying out strikes against Islamic State.
"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near
the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US
jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two
strike planes.
If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still
providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt.
The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth
airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive
stealth.
Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production
of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli
nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.
Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that
Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to
400 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of
4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well
as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.
Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using
submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli
Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.
The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering
tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and
supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and
revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of
each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the
installation.
The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where
he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court
then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen
years imprisonment.
At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for
approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu
was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of
a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the
press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of
the terms of his release.
Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a
preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets
to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding
serious threats to health from living near the reactor.
According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were
subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who
submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision
and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.
In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from
1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to
obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in
discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was
providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm
The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are
truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those
who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are
complicit in that enormous crime.
Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of
"security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has
trampled countless nations into piles of rubble.
To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally
hated in the third world. Rightly.
Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done
militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then
how?
Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago.
The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality,
ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.
A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a
country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for
most Americans.
In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries.
So the monster will come down.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies,
armed to teeth with guns
I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney
cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist
cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about
another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected.
At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.
Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am
This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It
says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That
is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written
here. We will find a way to put war out of business.
Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am
I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan,
with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to
attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame
the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am
Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived
for the zionists.
Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had
to be opposed.
The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists
for Mideast wars.
Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am
Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian
pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total
destruction. Easy.
mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am
The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich
and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of
Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but
themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but
their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of
the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out
human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare
quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of
everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.
Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite
a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.
What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also
cheered on the jihadists.
Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and
'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant
Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has
been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just
like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total
disgrace?
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
"... The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. ..."
"... Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant . ..."
"... By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another. ..."
"... I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. ..."
"... At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation. ..."
"... The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore. ..."
"... John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day. ..."
"... So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism? ..."
"... In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave. ..."
"... I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..."
"... Browder is a spook. ..."
"... This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media. ..."
"... In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes ..."
"... I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up. ..."
"... The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy. ..."
"... The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket.. ..."
"... The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia? ..."
Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic
standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary
statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all
officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their
dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many,
people still remember.
Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international
crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles
from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods
..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the
breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political
right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions
and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not underdstand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in
the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the
rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave.
I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible
and seperate the Truths it containedf from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that pepeople were actually burned
alive in England for smuggling the Bible in english translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such
a 'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the
filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM
as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilising our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos.
Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being
and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled:
"MPs defend fees of up to Ł1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel"
However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous
critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT
is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those
who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut.
RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake
news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told).
Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority.
The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless
and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn
out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of
$145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us
with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish
government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
Being totally controlled by intelligence agencies is probably the wildest nightmare now...
And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond such a nightmare.
Any JFK files still classified have been totally scrubbed by this point. Anything damaging
was likely destroyed long ago. Anything left is there for a purpose.
As such they they likely contain more disinformation than information at this point and
it'll be hard to tell the difference between the two.
They all had their little so-called "Democratic Club" under Obama where they all thought
that'd prepare the way for more of their corrupt agenda by putting Hillary into Office. They
know now that all the activities like RussiaPhobia, rigging of the Democratic National
Committee, etc. were all part of the plot. Just remember that Obama was highly skilled in the
totally corrupted politics of Chicago and The State of Illinois that he helped to bancrupt.
He did a good job at the same thing in Washington D.C., brought in with the help of the CIA
(who he used to work for in Chicago) and run the deficit to levels every politician agreed to
where deficits don't matter, we can print as much as we want mentality. This is why you see
China, Russia and many other countries now looking at the warmongering corruption in
Washington D.C. and saying that federal politicians if you give them enough time will implode
the U.S. from within if you give them enough rope. Now you see the current CIA Director
meeting with James Rickards because he understands that economic implosion will hit their
agenda.
Boy are you right. A Republican run Congress and Senate in 2015 when the book, _Clinton
Cash_ made the best seller list. Apparently none of them read it and just now are getting
around to looking what has to be one of the largest criminal rackets ever run within that
City.
"as the Trump investigators -- in Congress, in the Justice Department, and the legions in
the media -- begin to grow strangely silent about the entire collusion charge" "America is in
a radical state of flux, or rather in a great accounting and recalibration, ranging from
government to popular culture. Hollywood lived a lie and now is not what it was just three
weeks ago. The NFL was based on known but ignored hypocrisies and is no longer the league it
was in September. The media has put rank partisanship before truth and lost ideologically and
morally. And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond our wildest nightmares.
"
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics
professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who has lied, leaked and who wrote the Hillary report weeks
before any key players, including Hillary, were interviewed, wants us to know the FBI is
"honest", "strong", and "independent". The man who leaked and connived to get a special
prosecutor wants to convince us of that.
Jim Comey is the one who had no problem with Andrew McCabe's conflicts of interest. He is
the one who disgraced his own agency. He is the one who obstructed justice by declaring Hillary
Clinton innocent which he is not permitted to do in his role. The former director is the one
who lamented not being a "stronger" man.
Comey is sanctimonious, arrogant, supercilious, and narcissistic and he's not an agent, he's
a lawyer.
... ... ...
Does anyone doubt that Mueller, who has hired Hillary donors and activist
Democrats to investigate Trump, knew about Strzok's leanings? A top spy and he didn't know?
They are simply trying to silence us with their usual diversions. Don't fall for it. We
don't have to be blindly obedient to these people.
Pete Strzok is the agent who caught Flynn lying. Set up?
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly
Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was
until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly
negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed
for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in
the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the
first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and
influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA
connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information
out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all,
or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.
Just one day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.in the Russia
investigation, reports have surfaced accusing a veteran investigator in the special probe of
sending disparaging text messages regarding President Donald Trump. The investigator was
removed from the probe a few month ..... #5FastFacts#News#BreakingNews
That damn Comey is the biggest liar and most corrupt person in the Hillary email
investigation. Actually there was no investigation, because he had already determined how she
had done nothing wrong. Pathetic. Also Mueller has set up his group of lawyers, who have all
been connected to contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The damn democrats will do
anything to try to find something corrupt about President Trump. All they need to do is look
in the mirror, if they are looking for corrupt.
Obviously Rosenstein didn't think the DoJ could do the job since he scrambled to appoint a
special counsel at the first opportunity after Comey leaked the memo. Trey Gowdy is one of
the most honest Congressmen in the HoR but he's seemingly a little naive at times. He wants
to believe the best about his colleagues and friends. The facts have to be in his face before
he sees the truth. He's only now beginning to see the light about Mueller, I think.
the f.b.i. just like the i.r.s. the e.p.a. , homeland security and many more govt.
organisations that at one time worked for the very citizens that pay them but now they are
all politicized , even weaponized to be used as a tool against one's political rivals ,
thanks Obummer !! who did not start or do this all on his own but did carry the ball down the
road further than any other before him
FBI your garbage thanks to the Clinton's. I hope to live for 30 more years and your shit
to me. Now I understand why we need rights to guns . To fight you criminals in my government.
I hate liberals but I know some conservatives are just as nasty . McCain is my top choice for
Hillary bent .
I don't think there is an impartial person in the entire world... And I mean that
literally... Everyone from England to Australia to Japan to South Africa is as passionate
about this Trump issue as anyone here in the US.
If Casey and Muller are an example of NO FINER INSTITUTION AND NO FINER PEOPLE THAN THE
FBI..." REALLY? so why are all the PROBER'S HILLARY DONATORS? -----> Wray is a deep state
criminal just like Comey and Mueller
The FBI agent fired by Mueller for sending Anti-Trump text messages was IN charge of the
Russia probe and even asked Micheal Flynn questions. So could it be that this was all a set up
against Trump? More secrets keep unravelling in the Mueller probe, and we'll keep updating you
on this story.
Seeker, Mr. Strzok needs to have a prolonged interrogation done on him , until the lasi
little tidbit of his machinations are wrung out of him until it is a sure bet that he has
nothing left to give up. Stzrok has good friends who invented sure fire techniques that have
guaranteed results. A Thousand Cuts comes to mind ! ! ! Of course that can not happen so let
Hillary in on the scuttlebut that Stzrok is going to rat out everbody in order to save His
behind. In no time flat Mr Stzrok will throw a JIMMY HOFFA ! ! ! ! ! That Hairy , Bull Dagger
, Pussy Hat Wearin , P U S S Y P O S S E of Hillary's is Ruthless ! ! ! ! ! Thank You Seeker
jeebs out
Enjoyed you explanation of neocons. I realized, some years back, we need to change the
Department of Defense to the Department of Offense. I suppose we could rename Homeland
Security to Dept. of Defense, but they are actuating an offensive war on us and our freedoms.
Maybe stop poking our noses in other peoples business and we could eliminate both
departments. So ... what do we call a conservative that is hawkish on Peace? A normal, well
balanced, human being? Haven't seen one of those hanging out around our capitol in a
while.
"... The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server. ..."
"... As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan. ..."
"... The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13. ..."
"... A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?" ..."
"... Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season. ..."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that
the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary
Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this
year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He
participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just
days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email
server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various
agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John
Brennan.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Stzrok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, D-Calif., has sought documents and
witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier
played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of
that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who
has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions –
to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial
of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for
various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held
in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein
as recently as last Wednesday.
That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations
of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all os his outstanding requests for
documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a
resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this
explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director
[Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.
Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok's texts were cited in published reports by the New
York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about
the department's refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice
Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok's
appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long
sought by the Nunes team.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have
handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for
Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the
Senate panel.
The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House
interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post
stories.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec.
13.
The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel's
demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the
production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room
at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.
Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash
over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and
DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying
publicly that the two agencies were "stonewalling" Congress.
All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of
documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight
of the intelligence community.
Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include "highly sensitive raw
intelligence," so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S.
the "potential danger and chilling effect" it could place on foreign intelligence sources.
Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session
that his committee's ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once
rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel's Democratic members were permitted to
attend.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised
important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the
dossier matter.
"That's why the IG is looking into all of those things," a Justice Department official told
Fox News on Saturday.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about
the dossier?"
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: "Immediately upon learning of the
allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation."
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its
relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the
height of the campaign season.
The "Bull Dog" of the House has a grave warning for Robert Mueller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), known for his tough "prosecutor" persona, sits on the House
Intelligence Committee. The Committee on Saturday
threatened to hold the FBI and Department of Justice in contempt of Congress for
withholding information related to the removal of FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation.
Rep. Gowdy told Fox News that the Special Counsel faces "integrity" problems after the
revelation that Strzok's removal was due to exchanging anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer
Lisa Page–with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.
"We met with the
department of justice and they have to go through the texts," Gowdy said.
He then explained the Intelligence Committee's interest in the Strzok text messages.
"We are not entitled to them, nor do we have an interest in purely personal texts. We are
very interested in both anti-Trump and/or pro-Clinton texts . Because, as he made reference
to, he was a very important agent in her investigation, also in the ongoing Russian related
investigation, perhaps the decision for Comey to change the wording in a statement."
Gowdy's remark about "wording in a statement" referred to reports that Strzok
encouraged former FBI director James Comey to describe Hillary Clinton's private email
server actions as "extremely careless" rather than "grossly negligent." The latter term carries
legal weight with potential criminal penalties while the former does not.
Gowdy continued: "He is super important and people have a right to know whether agents are
biased one way or another. The department is going to go through the texts been going to make
them available to us as soon as they can." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum then asked Gowdy if
he still has confidence in the Mueller probe, to which the South Carolina lawmaker replied.
"I do, but I got to confess to you, and I understand people who think I'm wrong. I got an
email last night from a friend back home saying, 'Look, Gowdy, let go of the prosecutor
stuff.' I still think that Mueller can produce a product that we all have confidence in, but
things like this, make it really difficult -- the perception is, is every bit as important as
the reality, and if the perception is, you're employing people who are biased, it makes us
really difficult for those of us that would like to defend the integrity of former
prosecutors."
Gowdy's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans, who question the integrity of agents
that have investigated two presidential campaigns, but apparently favor one over the other.
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. ..."
"... Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague. ..."
"... House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. ..."
"... The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] ..."
"... Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. ..."
"... Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways. ..."
Joshua Caplan – In yet another blow to Mueller's investigation
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel was
forced to fire a top FBI agent after possible anti-Trump text messages were discovered.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia.
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's
unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators
and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working
counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke
with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike
Levine.
Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter
Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who
was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after
Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
Strzok played a key role in analyzing the infamous 'Trump dossier,' supplied by shady
research firm Fusion GPS. The now disgraced FBI agent used disproven elements of the dossier to
spy on members of the Trump campaign.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months
of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6
agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive
claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved
forward with FISA surveillance anyways.
Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Page, While Plotting The
Downfall Of President Donald Trump (Lisa Page Seen Walking Behind McCabe.) Andrew McCabe Is The
Acting FBI Director Who Said "First We F*ck Flynn, Then We F*ck Trump."
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr.
Mueller's investigation to the F.B.I.'s human resources department, where he has been stationed
since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages
in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways
that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.
In a statement to the New York Times, Strzok lawyer said"we are aware of the allegation and
are taking any and all appropriate steps."
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit
Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of
nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of
his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised
by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources
division," reported Mike Levine.
Now this
After new details emerged about Strzok's firing, the Washington Post revealed the Justice Department
launched an investigation into "communications between certain individuals." Details of the
mystery probe will be revealed "promptly upon completion of the review of them,' said the
Justice Department. Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a
review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI
who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year,
after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year." [
] He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 –
just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend
prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private
email server.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
This is huge. Read the thread below for the complete context. Peter Strzok was knee deep
in the entire mess!
Hillary investigation, Hillary interview. Cheryl Mills interview and immunity deal. Weiner's
laptop. Trump Dossier, and Russian collusion. All of these investigations are totally
compromised.
https://www.citizenfreepres...
All they did was their best to destroy evidence, bury evidence and deflect any kind of
real investigation of Hilabeast and team....and everybody knows it on the Hill.
So what are you waiting for asleep at the wheel Sessionns.... ? and any other decent
politician.....well....yeah, obviously those don't exist.....
This is crazy how much more corrupt can this get WTF is Session & Wray doing. Then
Mueller puts this guy on his team, as the Lead FBI , as if he didn't know he was a
compromised dirtbag.
Like how Mueller hide it from everyone for 3 months why he was demoted, and they want to
pretend they the honest brokers just looking for the truth and facts/s
Dirty cop Mueller and his team sycophants trying take down the President United States on
some trumped up bull, turn this country into joke and do irreparable damage.
While he did nothing scratch his old balls while Hil & Obama sold out to the
Russians.
"'Review of' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation"
Huh? The the entire thing "investigation" is and has been, from Day 1, nothing more than a no
holds barred attack on not only the legally elected POTUS DJT, but equally against his
supporters.
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
Notable quotes:
"... The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. ..."
"... His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. ..."
"... When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up ..."
"... In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network. ..."
The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in
his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and
certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents.
Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.
When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority
who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still
for such a blatant cover-up .
Josh Blackman, a conservative lawyer, argued that Trump could remove the special counsel, but "make no mistake: Mueller's firing
would likely accelerate the end of the Trump administration." Texas representative Mike McCaul declared in July, "If he fired Bob
Mueller, I think you'd see a tremendous backlash, response from both Democrats but also House Republicans." Such a rash move "could
be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed.
In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller. "The Mueller situation
really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address the current situation," explained Republican senator Thom Tillis, a sponsor
of one of the bills. By early autumn, the momentum behind the effort had slowed; by Thanksgiving, Republican interest had melted
away. "I don't see any heightened kind of urgency, if you're talking about some of the reports around Flynn and others," Tillis said
recently. "I don't see any great risk."
In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line,
and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that
Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network.
John Dowd, a lawyer for Trump, recently floated the wildly expansive defense that a "president cannot obstruct justice, because
he is the chief law-enforcement officer." Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called the investigation "illegitimate and corrupt"
and declared that "the FBI has become America's secret police." Graham is now calling for a special counsel to investigate "Clinton
email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign" -- i.e., every anti-Mueller conspiracy
theory. And perhaps as ominously, Trump's allies have been surfacing fallback defenses. Yes, "some conspiratorial quid pro quo between
somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin" is "possible," allowed
Wall Street Journal columnist
Holman Jenkins, but "we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and,
by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality." The notion of a criminal conspiracy by a hostile nation
to intervene in the election in return for pliant foreign policy has gone from unthinkable to blasé, an offense only to naďve bourgeois
morality.
It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a
dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law.
"... Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him? ..."
"... In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US "Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring that Trump " had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also around the time when liberals first learned of the Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which Obama had allegedly slept. ..."
"... This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in 1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers" video. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
First came the overwhelming shock of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump, a repulsive, word
salad-babbling buffoon with absolutely no political experience who the media had been
portraying to liberals as the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler. This was a candidate, let's
recall, who jabbered about building a "beautiful wall" to protect us from the hordes of
"Mexican rapists" and other "bad hombres" who were invading America, and who had boasted about
grabbing women "by the pussy" like a prepubescent 6th grade boy. While he had served as a
perfect foil for Clinton, and had provided hours of entertainment in a comic book villain kind
of way, the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency was inconceivable in the minds of liberals.
So, when it happened, it was like the Martians had invaded.
Mass hysteria gripped the nation. There was beaucoup wailing and gnashing of teeth. Liberals
began exhibiting irrational and, in some cases, rather disturbing behaviors. Many degenerated
into dissociative states and just sat there with their phones for hours obsessively reloading
the popular vote count, which Clinton had won, on FiveThirtyEight. Others festooned
themselves with safety pins and went out looking for defenseless minorities who they could
"demonstrate solidarity" with. Owen Jones flew in from London to join his colleague Steven
Thrasher, who was organizing a guerilla force to resist "
the normalization of Trump " and the global race war he was about to launch, which "not all
of us were going to get out of alive."
At that point, the media had been hammering hard on the Trump-is-Hitler narrative for
months, so they had to stick with that for a while. It had only been a few weeks, after all,
since The Wall Street
Journal , The
New York Times , The Washington Post , The Guardian , and numerous other
establishment publications , had explained how Trump was using special fascist code words
like "global elites," "international banks," and "lobbyists" to signal his virulent hatred of
the Jews to the millions of Americans who, according to the media, were secretly Hitler-loving
fascists.
This initial post-election propaganda was understandably somewhat awkward, as the plan had
been to be able to celebrate the "Triumph of Love over the Forces of Hate," and the demise of
the latest Hitlerian bogeyman. But this was the risk the ruling classes took when they chose to
go ahead and Hitlerize Trump, which they wouldn't have done if they'd thought for a moment that
he had a chance of actually winning the election. That's the tricky thing about Hitlerizing
people. You need to be able to kill them, eventually. If you don't, when they turn out not to
be Hitler, your narrative kind of falls apart, and the people you've fear-mongered into a
frenzy of frothing, self-righteous fake-Hitler-hatred end up feeling like a bunch of dupes
who'll believe anything the government tells them. This is why, normally, you only Hitlerize
foreign despots you can kill with impunity. This is Hitlerization 101 stuff, which the ruling
classes ignored in this case, which the left poor liberals terrified that Trump was actually
going to start building Trump-branded death camps and rounding up the Jews.
Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces
rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion
dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its
professional journalism) led the charge with
this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website
and a think tank staffed by charlatans like
this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia
expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee
appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces
followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of
scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before
somebody has to go in there and shoot him?
In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going
balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's
remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US
"Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had
hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring
that Trump "
had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also
around the time when liberals first learned of the
Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB
had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which
Obama had allegedly slept.
This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to
take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in
1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war
with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who
Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers"
video. Putin had presumably been "running" Trump since Trump's visit to Russia in 2013 to
hobnob with "Russia-linked" Russian businessmen and attend the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
During the ensuing partying, Trump must have gotten loaded on Diet Coke and gotten carried away
with those Russian hookers. Now, Putin had him by the short hairs and was forcing him to staff
his Manchurian cabinet with corporate CEOs and Goldman Sachs guys, who probably had also been
videotaped by the FSB in Moscow hotels paying hookers to pee on furniture, or performing
whatever other type of seditious, perverted kink they were into.
Before the poor liberals had time to process this, the ruling classes launched "the
Resistance." You remember the Pussyhat
People , don't you? And the global corporate PR campaign which accompanied their historic
"Womens' March" on Washington? Do you remember liberals like Michael Moore shrieking for the feds to arrest
Donald Trump ? Or publications like The New York Times , Salon , and many others, and even State
Satirist Stephen Colbert accusing Trump and anyone who supported him of treason a crime,
let's recall, that is punishable by death? Do you remember folks like William Kristol and Rob "the Meathead"
Reiner demanding that the "deep state" launch a coup against Trump to rescue America from
the Russian infiltrators?
Ironically, the roll-out of this "Russiagate" hysteria was so successful that it peaked too
soon, and prematurely backlashed all over itself. By March, when Trump had not been arrested,
nor otherwise removed from office, liberals, who by that time the corporate media had teased
into an incoherent, throbbing state of anticipation were well, rather disappointed. By April,
they were exhibiting all the hallmark symptoms of clinical psychosis. This mental breakdown was
due to the fact that the media pundits and government spooks who had been telling them that
Trump was Hitler, and then a Russian sleeper agent, were now telling them that he wasn't so
bad , because he'd pointlessly bombed a Syrian airstrip, and dropped a $314 million Massive
Ordnance Air Blast bomb on some alleged "terrorist caves" in Afghanistan.
As if liberals' poor brains weren't rattled enough, the corporate media then switched back
to, first, the Russian Propaganda narrative (which they expanded into a global threat), then,
the Hitler stuff again, but this time Trump wasn't actually Hitler, because Putin was Hitler,
or at least he was fomenting Hitlerism throughout the West with his legions of fascist hacker
bots who were "influencing" unsuspecting consumers with their blitzkrieg of divisive "fake
news" stories. Oh, yeah, and now
Putin had also done Brexit , or Trump and Robert Mercer had, but they were working for
Putin, who had also hacked the
French election that he hadn't hacked , or whatever
this was no time to worry about what had or hadn't actually happened. The peace and prosperity
President Obama had reestablished throughout the West by incessantly bombing the Greater Middle
East and bailing out his pals at the Wall Street banks was being torn asunder by Vladimir
Putin, who at some point had apparently metamorphosized from a ruthless, former KGB autocrat
into a white supremacist megalomaniac.
Right on cue, on the weekend of August 11-12 in Charlottesville, Virginia,
where there had never been any history of racism , a "national gathering" of approximately
five hundred tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan types, and other white supremacists,
many of them barking Nazi slogans, marched into the pages of history. Never before have so few
fascists owed so much to the mainstream media, which showered them with overwrought coverage,
triggering a national Nazi panic. Liberals poured into the streets, tearing down Confederate
monuments, and otherwise signaling their total intolerance of the racism they had tolerated
until a few days earlier.
People named after Robert E. Lee , and horses named after
General Lee's horse , went into hiding to until the panic subsided. This was wise, as by
then the so-called anti-fascists were showing up in force at anything resembling a right-wing
rally and stomping the living Hitler out of Nazis, and Trump supporters, and journalists, and
well, anyone they didn't think looked quite right. This totally preemptively self-defensive,
non-violent type of violent behavior, naturally, shocked and horrified liberals, who are
strongly opposed to all forms of violence that aren't carried out by the US military, or the
police, or someone else wearing a uniform. Unsure as to whom they were supposed to condemn, the
Nazis or the Antifa terrorists, they turned for guidance to the corporate ruling classes, who
informed them
it was time to censor the Internet .
This made about as much sense as any of the other nonsense they'd been spoonfed so far, so
liberals decided to get behind it, or at least look the other way while it happened. Facebook,
Google, Amazon, Twitter (and all the other corporations that control the Internet, the media,
Hollywood, the publishing industry, and every other means of representing "reality") surely
have people's best interests at heart. Plus, they're only censoring the Nazis, and the
terrorists, and the Russian "fake news" disseminators, and, OK, a lot of leftist publications, and
award-winning journalists , and anyone else espousing "divisive," anti-American, or
anti-corporate, "extremist" views.
Look, I know what you're probably thinking, but it isn't like liberals don't actually care
about fundamental liberal values like freedom of the press and speech and all that. It's just
that they desperately need the Democrats to take back the House and the Senate next year, so
they can get on with impeaching Trump, and if they have to stand by while the corporations
suppress a little leftist dissent, or, you know, transform the entire Internet into a massive,
mind-numbing echo chamber of neo-McCarthyite corporate conformity well, sacrifices have to be
made.
This can't go on forever, after all. This level of full-blown mass hysteria can only be
sustained for so long. It's all fine and good to be able to whip people up into a frenzied mob,
but at some point you need to have an endgame. The neoliberal ruling classes know this. Their
endgame is actually fairly simple. Their plan is to (a) make an example of Trump to discourage
any future billionaire idiots from screwing with their simulation of democracy, and (b)
demonize anyone deviating from neoliberal ideology as a fascist, racist, or anti-Semite, or
otherwise "abnormal" or "extremist." Their plan is not to incinerate the entire planet
in a war with Russia. We're not on the brink of World War III, despite how many Twitter likes
or Facebook shares it might get me to say that. Yes, eventually, they want to force Russia to
return to the kind of "cooperation" it engaged in during the 1990s, when it was run by an
incorrigible drunkard and the Goldman Sachs boys and their oligarch pals were looting the
country for all it was worth but that has little to do with all this.
No, the corporate ruling classes' endgame here is to reestablish neoliberal "normality," so
we can get back to the War on Terror (or whatever they'll be calling it by then), and put this
neo-nationalist revolt against neoliberalism episode behind us. To do that, they will need
to install some sort of hopey-changey, Obama-like messiah, or at least somebody who can play
the part of POTUS like a normal person and not sit around the Oval Office gobbling McDonald's
and retweeting racist memes by random British fascists.
The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there
eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by
obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not colluding
with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes are surely
about to fall. Once they all have, and Donald Trump's head has been mounted on a spike on the
White House lawn as a warning to any other potential usurpers, all this Russia and Nazi
hysteria that has the poor liberals running around like headless chickens will disappear.
Russia will go back to being Russia. The North American Nazi Menace, deprived of daily media
coverage, will go back to being a fringe phenomenon. Liberals will go back to ignoring politics
(except identity politics, naturally) and obediently serving the global capitalist ruling
elites that are destroying the planet, and the lives of millions of human beings, in order to
increase their profit margins. Sure, there'll be a brief emotional hangover, once the
adrenaline rush wears off and they look back at their tweets and Facebook posts, which in
hindsight might convey the impression that they spent the better part of a year parroting
whatever insane propaganda the corporate media pumped out at them, and otherwise behaving like
Good
Americans but then, that's what the "delete" key is for.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there
eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by
obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not
colluding with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes
are surely about to fall."
Thanks, now I understand where Judge Napolitano is coming from.
"... neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon. ..."
"... Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure. ..."
"... On the contrary, nationalist conservative intellectuals display far, far, far, far more intellectual excellence than the liberals, the neoconservatives, or the milquetoast moderates. ..."
"... In the past, when one or two parties became rotten, new parties emerged to challenge them. But in the early 20th century, the Dems and the GOP agreed to revise election laws to create prohibitively steep requirements for any party that had not gotten a certain percentage of the vote the previous election, thereby creating the myth of the "major parties" and the "two party system." ..."
The entire political culture is at the bottom of the swamp. Neither the Democrat nor the
Republican side has a pristine character. We are always voting for the least objectionable
side.
The Democrats brought us abortion, pushed same sex marriage and imposed an enormous public
debt on us, why would any sane person even consider voting for any of them unless that person
is a direct beneficiary of the afore mentioned policies of abomination.
The culture in general encourages bad behavior. I do not see much prospect for improvement
in the new future. As far as I know Trump stays out of the Xerox room and is willing to
tackle real problems facing this country. The Republican party is casting off its governing
elite. They failed us. The populous wants a change. It not rotting its fertilizing that
smells. Get a grip man!
David Brooks is part of the intellectual elite that led us into Iraq and the Great Recession.
Buckley, Baker and Kirkpatrick were part of the Republican elite but of a different branch
than Brooks.
Every word of this alternates between arrant nonsense and outright intellectual cowardice.
The problem is not that Politicians are scummy people, they have always been scummy
people. (Perhaps even the slightest familiarity with Greece and Rome would help illustrate
the point?). The problem is that that Participatory Democracy rapidly falls to the lowest
common denominator of human vileness, compounded by inevitable Race and Religious
factionalism. You want to blame the Politicians? Blame the Voter at the 50% percentile, where
the blame belongs.
The fact is, when we threw away our limited vote Republic during the "Progressive" Era, we
set ourselves on the course to this destination. This Government has not another twenty years
of life on its current course. Most of us should live to see what arises from its ashes.
No, neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of
some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who
is more or less a neocon.
Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change
which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have
been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure.
"More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm
politically homeless."
Sheepishly raises hand. I was always a Republican not because of any of a thousand issues,
but because I believed Republicans knew how to run an efficient, financially prudent
government. It was the party of conservative values like work and integrity.
Democrats were the party of budget deficits, handouts, war and favored constituencies. The
Republicans have become the Democrats of old, just tweaking who gets the handouts.
GWB's second term was the first time I ever voted for a democrats across the line. Not
because I care about their policies (they're basically Republican anyway), but just because
its the only way I have to slap the GOP in my small way.
The GOP has become the party of radical incompetence. An embarrassment. I see little
difference between Trump and Hillary. And most Republicans I know think there is an ocean
between them. That's how small their world has become.
The rot afflicting the G.O.P. is comprehensive -- moral, intellectual, political and
reputational. More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless.
I'm politically homeless."
Cry me a river. A lot of Americans have felt this way way for decades. Pew Research Center
polling has consistently shown that the largest group of Americans tilts socially to the
right but economically to the left. There has not been a party since FDRs Democrats that felt
like a home for these people.
Given that we have a two-party system, and that's unlikely to change, I would rather that
at least one party begin represent a significant portion of the population again.
Brooks should replace "populism" with "elitism". Republican elitism along with Republican
RINOS are what led to the rise of Republican populism. The rot began with the elites and the
Rinos.
[NFR: By this point, "RINO" is an empty term. -- RD]
If you see populism as tending toward the triumph of the demagogic, then I suppose you
would tend to see Trump as a populist. Although I haven't read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't
Happen Here" since I was 17, the Berzelius Windrip character, a demagogue who manages to
bulls**t his way into the Presidency, reminds me of Trump. He isn't really a populist
ideologue anymore than Trump is. He is, like Trump, just a bad man and a slob.
I don't know the history of American populism as well as I wish I did, but if you expel
the rancid racism which tended to infect the Southern strain, but which the master 1930s
Southern populist ( and crook and tyrant ) of them all, Huey Long, had contempt for and
didn't exploit, then populism is strictly an economic force.
It sought always to batter away at the laws and the conditions which enabled "economic
royalists" to exploit most of their countrymen. Damned right it sought to be a leveling
force, and good for that.
Were the early populists, Bryan, LaFollette, Theodore Roosevelt to an extent, unlettered
men, men fond of the idea of keeping the electorate educationally downtrodden, and therefore
marks to be worked with clever slogans? Were FDR and the New Dealers like that? Harry Truman?
Lyndon Johnson? Hubert Humphrey? Bobby Kennedy? George McGovern?
Weren't these men and so many others about the elevation of people without means, the
protection and enhancement of their dignity? The middle class' very existence was in large
part a triumph of populistic governance over a 75 year period, at least as I've always
understood American history.
Guys like Brooks don't understand what this country was not so long ago.
I was already feeling queasy about my Republicanism by the time W showed up, but indeed, the
Republican was finally beaten out of me by the Iraq War, the (ongoing) denial by Republicans
that it was a catastrophe, their policy and celebration of torture, their incapability of
offering anything but warmed over Reaganism, and Sarah Palin.
Palin was our canary in the coal mine for the Trump age. She was as shallow and base as
any demagogue could be, whose political "ideas" were untethered to any meaningful philosophy
whatsoever, entirely the expression of cultural resentment over those darned liberal
eggheads pushing around "real Americans." That McCain chose her as a potential president was
reckless. And the Establishment and rank and file Republicans just lapped it up because she
bumped up McCain's numbers in the final stretch of the election.
My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites
(who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most
ardent supporters let him get away with it.
Because who else is available?
If in fact you're a Republican who believes the GOP elite have failed the party and failed
the country – what was your choice? Ted Cruz? Rick Perry?
Edsall's column is prescient but liberals won't change. If there's a reflexive hostility
to workaday conservatism, there's an intolerable smugness to liberalism – even those
Edsall quote assume that "cosmopolitanism," for example, is superior to parochialism, not
just in practical ways – but morally.
He's right in saying a whooooole lot of Americans believe this view was imposed upon them,
and they're right – it was.
The people Brooks cites as his preferred brand are precisely the sorts we deplorables cannot
stand. He's an elitist. I mean, you can't blame him, he's conservative in that he likes the
status quo that gives him his influence, his income, his way of life. But he mistakes his own
bubble for the greater good for all of us – who are just important as ourselves is
Brooks to himself – and there are orders of magnitude more of us, than him. We're
conservative too – we haven't enjoyed having our way of life taken away from us, while
his remains intact.
On the contrary, nationalist conservative intellectuals display far, far, far, far more
intellectual excellence than the liberals, the neoconservatives, or the milquetoast
moderates.
Honesty and moral courage are prerequisites for intellectual excellence.
The right wing writers featured at unz.com, for instance, have both qualities in abundance
– unlike the liberal, neocon and moderate apologists for the establishment.
Well, I know you always say that you don't think there was a golden age, but when you say
it's "putrefying" you indicate that you do. That it was not always putrid. Or that it was
less so. But this from Brooks is absurd:
"The Republican Party I grew up with admired excellence. It admired intellectual
excellence (Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley), moral excellence (John Paul II, Natan
Sharansky) and excellent leaders (James Baker, Jeane Kirkpatrick)"
Well, yes. I suppose. But Bob Packwood first elected to the Senate in 1969. Not 2009.
Oliver North is an actual historical figure. Congressman Joseph McDade was as much a part of
the GOP during Brooks' youth as Reagan was.
To say there is rot is to assume that there was once a solid tree. But was there?
The GOP of Brook's youth was Kissinger and Nixon. G. Gordon Liddy. Etc.
That's no defense of the goons now in charge. But to assume they are there because of rot
is to assume that the swamp you are in was once a lovely mid-century modern home in the
Village.
It wasn't. It was always a swamp. It always smelled bad. But Brooks was too young to
notice. Or too blinded by youthful admiration to see that all people are human. Especially
politicians.
[NFR: I don't think there was ever a time in history when Congressmen were choirboys.
Does anybody? These guys are dirtbags, and they get very little good done, far as I can tell.
Brooks's point is not (or not entirely) that they are immoral, but that they are unprincipled
and guided by very little that is smart or good. I am sure that Brooks and I disagree on what
constitutes "good," but we both agree that what we have now is bad. -- RD]
Populism isn't intellectually inept and populists are not just the people who Brooks
despises.
They just hold to a different intellectual framework.
Nationalist vs. Globalist-most of the GOPe is globalist. They do not prioritize the people
of America first, but put their idelogical worldwide goals ahead of the interests of the
American people as a whole.
In foreign policy, Tlthe Republican Party has long been a bastion of America 1st foreign
policy until the Wilson, FDR, and Truman pushed America into the position of globalist
hegemon.
America 1st policy has a deep intellectual tradition and recalls Washington's farewell
address.
In trade policy, America 1st economic nationalism harks back to Alexander Hamilton and
continues to the American System of Henry Clay and on the core of the Republican Party
economics from Lincoln onward.
I could go on.
Either one prioritizes the interests of the people as a whole or the interests of the few.
Conservative Inc. cares about the rich and powerful and their fellow approved thinkers. If
the general welfare is the focus, then conservatism would resemble the work of Pat Buchanan
and not what is currently pushed by National Review and the so-called conservatives in the
NYT opinion pages.
True American conservatism is populist and nationalist. It aims to help all the people by
restoring power to the people. It does not believe that the "elites" are the answer, but that
people having freedom is the answer.
I have more degrees and credentials than most of the GOPe elites. I know a number of them
personally and do not see them as being "better".
Bush 41 kicked out the Reagan folks as soon as they took over, restoring the GOPe to its
position of dominance after Reagan brought in a much more populist and nationalist
conservatism to Washington.
Trump has governed (by action) more conservatively than I ever anticipated. The economy is
booming. Regulations are disappearing. And he isn't declining American foreign policy, but is
ditching the failed NWO and the Neocons behind it.
And he has thrown away the failed ideology and structures of the bipartisan Washington
establishment.
The people fearful of Trump are Democrats and NeverTrumpers who will lose power and wealth
by reducing the size and scope of the establishment.
And Trump's tweets are part his repertoire to disrupt the media driven narratives and
allow him to shake up the world.
Sometimes entrenched interests need to be knocked off their pedestals. Populism arises
when the elites lose connection with the people.
Reagan was a populist revolutionary as well. He attacked sacred cows. He was a better
speaker, but his opposition wasn't nearly as vile. Bureaucrats still mostly cared about doing
a good job and serving the country, instead of secretly resisting democracy. And 40% of the
country still hated Reagan as president ..
In the past, when one or two parties became rotten, new parties emerged to challenge
them. But in the early 20th century, the Dems and the GOP agreed to revise election laws to
create prohibitively steep requirements for any party that had not gotten a certain
percentage of the vote the previous election, thereby creating the myth of the "major
parties" and the "two party system."
There should be about three new parties emerging now, of which one would probably start to
fade, along with the two former majors, although one of the majors might reform itself under
competitive pressure, or merge with one of the up and coming parties.
So which is it? " he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most ardent
supporters let him get away with it. This tax bill, which he embraces, gives lie to any
substantive claim that Trump is a populist." Or, A lot of us will end up voting for them by
default, because we decide for whatever reason voting for a Democrat could be worse, but that
doesn't change the fact that the Republicans are incapable of responsible government."?
Rhetorical question, of course.
Americans who have volunteered to serve as combatants in the (oligarch-designed) culture
war have essentially assumed George Carlin's view of American elections (see: 1996 rant on
YouTube). while You the People were ringing hands and gnashing teeth over who can marry whom
(and who bakes the wedding cake?), or who gets to use which (public) restroom or locker
room?, or does the government or an individual have the authority to make choices regarding
healthcare and/or a person's body (male and female); the patsy-in-chief has been stepped on
the accelerator in terms of the environment, the economy, and the Middle East (not to mention
Korea). by endorsing the GOP political strategy of "weaponizing" individual behavior/choice
(aka morality), and enthusiastically volunteering to participate in the culture war, have
sold short – "chosing" to be political cannon fodder, as opposed an engaged and
critically thinking electorate. kudo's to the individual who chose the image of a pack of
jackals feasting on carrion. oligarchs are shameless scavengers, and yet Americans continue
to debate morality and ethics, while the carcass is picked clean.
"My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites
(who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it.."
Fair enough. Problem is, the Founders sort of started with the assumption that there are
no "elites" – that the "best and brightest" of us need checks and balances even worse
than the rest of us.
The gloriously competent elites of the past are a mirage, another "good ole times"
fallacy. Given the performance of Congress this century (and a good chunk of last), we might
as well appoint Senators and Representatives by lottery, similar to jury duty, and mandate
that all lobbyists participating in legislatives drafts have to comply with FOIA
requirements.
There is certainly rot, but it has nothing to do with incompetence, "expertise", or
hierarchy. We have a system of government that has tailored its institutions to those that
excel at expertly gaming the system to extract personal profit, primarily from that most
rotten of ventures, war. Brooks is just another camp follower of that endless train of
criminality and greed.
David Brooks just doesn't get it. What kind of bubble is he like bing in?
With Bush 43, we were promised a Dream Team of advisors: Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Howard
Baker, Donald Rumsfeld – smart, experienced, sober men who were going to provide
"excellence" in leadership. What we got wasn't "excellence" – we got a disastrous war
and a ruined economy. They failed this country. Unlike some conspiracy mongers, I don't claim
"Bush lied" – he just made a wrong decision based on the bad advice of his "Dream
Team." But, to this day, none of them will admit that it was wrong decision. What does that
say about their judgment or character? I'm not angry that they made the wrong decision
– I supported the war myself. But, I was wrong and I am angry that they still claim it
was the right decision when no rational person could honestly think that. And I have no idea
how their failure would translate into any reasonable definition of "excellence."
Succeeding Bush was Obama, who by all news accounts was one of the smartest men ever to
occupy the White House. He ooozed "excellence." The result? He promised to unite the country
and ended up dividing it. He criticized Bush for invading Iraq, but decided to "double down"
and destabilize Syria and Lybia, unleashing ISIS on the region. His economic stimulus plan
failed and the economy did not recover. His health care plan wrecked the private insurance
industry and cost tens of thousands of workers their health care plan. And, oh yeah, he lied
when he claimed that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
I did not vote for Trump and do not particularly like him. But, for Brooks to say that
"excellence requires and talent" and "populism doesn't demand the effort required to
understand the best has been thought out and said" is to be completely oblivious to the
reality of the past 16 years. What does he think has been happening in this country the past
16 years? For 16 years, we have had the "excellence" that Brooks advocates and we got a
wrecked economy, jobs sent overseas, and our sons and daughters dying in Middle Eastern hell
holes. If this is "excellence," Mr. Brooks can have it.
FEMA's top three leaders -- Director Michael D. Brown, Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode and
Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler -- arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000
campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency. Two other senior
operational jobs are filled by a former Republican lieutenant governor of Nebraska and a U.S.
Chamber of Commerce official who was once a political operative.
This is really just Cosimanian Orthodoxy in action: If a very large sum of money is to be
disbursed suddenly and quickly with loose accounting and no accountability then it is a very
good idea to have your hard-core political loyalists in charge to make sure it gets where it
is supposed to go.
Remember Whitefish Energy, the two-man firm that received a $300 million contract to
rebuild Puerto Rico's power system? Somebody was too greedy but thought he could get away
with it -- and almost did. How much of that money was ever going to reach Puerto Rico?
An immense sum of money was appropriated by Congress to rebuild New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina. There was more than one low-key report to the effect that the rebuilding
was a shadow of what might be expected for the sum appropriated. So, where did the money
go?
A number of years ago there was a very severe earthquake in Haiti, the poorest country in
the Western Hemisphere. One of the largest and best know American charities raised several
billion dollars for relief. A few years later a reporter went down to see how well they did.
He could only find about $20 million is aid disbursed. So, where did the money go?
George W. Bush, who oversaw rebuilding after Katrina, and Bill Clinton, who's probity is
well known, oversaw relief operations in Haiti to make sure they were clean and well run; so,
nothing to see here, move along.
There are whole volumes of things in Washington that the press doesn't think we need to
know. As Iowahawk wrote, "The job of the media is to cover important issues. With a pillow.
Until they stop moving.
[NFR: Four years after 9/11, it is incredible and indefensible that President Bush had
cronies running the Federal Emergency Management Agency. -- RD]
"... Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it. This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed to cross them if you want to stay on the inside. ..."
"... neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon. ..."
"... Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure. ..."
And for that matter, let us recall that it was the best and brightest of the Republican
Party's defense and national security elite that led the nation into its worst foreign policy
debacle since Vietnam. Did you see Ken Burns's recent Vietnam documentary? Did you see Errol
Morris's fantastic documentary The Fog of War , about Robert McNamara and Vietnam?
Those were Democratic Party elites, but the most important fact is that they were
American elites, just as the Republican elites that led us into Iraq. And it was
American elites -- Republican and Democrat -- that led us into the 2008 economic
crash, beginning with the Clinton-era deregulation of Wall Street, continued through the George
W. Bush era.
My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites
(who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most
ardent supporters let him get away with it. This tax bill, which he embraces, gives lie to any
substantive claim that Trump is a populist.
... ... ...
Yes, the GOP is putrefying. So is the Democratic Party (as Edsall's analysis reveals). The
rot began long before Donald Trump showed up on the political scene. He is both symptom and
catalyst, but he didn't start the rot.
He's absolutely right, of course, and the Republicans who voted for that unpopular (see
here and here), help-the-rich, deficit-exploding tax bill
Oh, get off it. The bill greatly expands the standard deduction, which reduces the value
of all itemized deductions (itemized deductions help the wealthy). It reduces the mortgage
interest and SALT deductions, which subsidize rich New Yorkers and Californians (the real
reason Democrats hate this bill). It increases the child credit (maybe not enough, but some).
A number of analyses show that it will give a modest post-tax income boost across the income
spectrum. As for the estate tax thing, remember that heirs pay capital gains and other taxes
(e.g. local property) on their inherited assets; tweaking the cost-basis people calculate on
inherited assets (I would set it to zero if I were king) could get the feds the same revenue
as an estate tax.
It is not a perfect or even that great of a bill, but stop robotically repeating every
apocalyptic denunciation of it (literally apocalyptic: Nancy Pelosi said the bill is
"Armageddon" and "the end of the world"; and others are screaming that the bill will
murder people).
NFR: On tax policy and economics, he's governing like a standard-issue plutocratic
Republican
Not on trade. Not on immigration. Pay attention.
On foreign policy, he's reducing American power abroad and making war more likely
Have you gone back to neoconservatism?
[NFR: Please. It delights me to think of the yoga-like contortions you're having to do to
justify your man's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. -- RD]
Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the
neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it.
This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed
to cross them if you want to stay on the inside.
Potentially influential people can't talk about these guys because if you do you lose your
job. This happens even now, there was a case within the last couple of months that comes to
mind.
Even though this group's plans have proceed disastrous time after time, these people are
beyond criticism and never suffer any consequences when their actions lead to real world death
and destruction.
[NFR: But that's just it -- neoconservatism *was* the conservative establishment, until
Trump came along. -- RD]
No, neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some
institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is
more or less a neocon.
Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change
which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have
been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure.
"More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm politically
homeless."
Sheepishly raises hand. I was always a Republican not because of any of a thousand issues,
but because I believed Republicans knew how to run an efficient, financially prudent
government. It was the party of conservative values like work and integrity.
Democrats were the party of budget deficits, handouts, war and favored constituencies. The
Republicans have become the Democrats of old, just tweaking who gets the handouts.
GWB's second term was the first time I ever voted for a democrats across the line. Not
because I care about their policies (they're basically Republican anyway), but just because its
the only way I have to slap the GOP in my small way.
The GOP has become the party of radical incompetence. An embarrassment. I see little
difference between Trump and Hillary. And most Republicans I know think there is an ocean
between them. That's how small their world has become.
The rot afflicting the G.O.P. is comprehensive -- moral, intellectual, political and
reputational. More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless.
I'm politically homeless."
Cry me a river. A lot of Americans have felt this way way for decades. Pew Research Center
polling has consistently shown that the largest group of Americans tilts socially to the right
but economically to the left. There has not been a party since FDRs Democrats that felt like a
home for these people.
Given that we have a two-party system, and that's unlikely to change, I would rather that at
least one party begin represent a significant portion of the population again.
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly
elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with
Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his
father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus
on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed
HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000
for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);
he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important
and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.
The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential
in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty
common for people in his field and position.
I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot
on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him.
As you point out, ´internet is not your friend´ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings.
Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish
?)
Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working
"in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved
in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent
to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years
after retiring? It's just force of habit.
I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would
have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI
office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server
file in light of this.
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous
- how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?
"... False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia ..."
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement
with special prosecutor Robert Mueller was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn had admitted to
killing Kennedy or had unprotected sex with Vladimir Putin. But once I took time to read the
actual agreement I realized, not surprisingly, the the media lynch mob was blinded by hatred
and unwilling to think objectively or fairly about the matter. The evidence exonerates Donald
Trump of having colluded with the Russians but does expose Michael Flynn as a man of terrible
judgment when it comes to talking to the FBI. There was nothing that Flynn did with the
Russians that was wrong or improper.
Here are the key details for you to judge for yourself:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the
defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and
accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the
charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the
defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
1. The defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor
for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Campaign"), as a senior member of
President-Elect Trump's Transition Team ("Presidential Transition Team"), and as the National
Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an
interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in Washington,
D.C. At the time of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Government of
Russia's ("Russia") efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the
nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia, and whether
there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts.
2. FLYNN's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the
FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals
associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential
election.
False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain
from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia
"... Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".) ..."
"... The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway. ..."
"... An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare them. ..."
"... This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18, in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a federal official -- even when one is not under oath. ..."
"... He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd. Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki leaks, all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money. Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal functioning of US government ..."
"... A weird country, the USA. Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused. ..."
"... Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate. ..."
"... That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint. ..."
"... Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys". ..."
Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn's sin was lying
to liars , not colluding with Russians.
When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump's 2016 election,
former National Security Advisor Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to
the electorate.
In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the
United States. K. T. McFarland, Flynn's deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that
Obama's expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at " boxing Trump in
diplomatically, " making it impossible for the president to "improve relations with
Russia," a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to
lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.
To defuse President Obama's spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot
of which was that Russia "retaliated" by inviting US diplomats and their families to the
Kremlin for a New Year's bash.
A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn't you say?
Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law. Kushner likely
instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite
pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by
Daddy and the First Daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.
One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's violations, here, is that
Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect's promised foreign
policy -- diplomacy with Russia -- is not illegal.
Perversely, however, lying to the US Federal Government's KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.
The US Government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell
to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated "criminal"
label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?
Nowhere.
By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common
criminals.
An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a
crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of
creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare
them.
Likewise was Martha Stewart imprisoned -- not for the offense of insider trading, but for
lying to her inquisitors. During interrogation, the poor woman had been so intimidated, so
scared of conviction -- wouldn't you? -- that she fibbed. The
lead federal prosecutor in her case was the now-notorious James B. Comey. (See "Insider
Trading Or Information Socialism?" )
This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in
Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of
Title 18,
in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a
federal official -- even when one is not under oath.
It's perfectly fine, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into
fibbing. By such tactics, The State has created a category of crime from which a select few are
exempt.
Is this equality under the law or inequality under the law?
Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations.
Yet another tool in the Deep State toolbox is to lean on family members in order to extract
a confession. To get Flynn senior to confess, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is purported
to have threatened Mike Flynn junior with a legal kneecapping.
Ultimately, The State has overwhelming power when compared to the limited resources and
power of an accused. The power differential between The State and an accused means he or she,
as the compromised party, will cop a plea. The Flynn
guilty plea bargain, if you will, is nothing more than a negotiated deal which subverts the
very goal of justice: the search for truth.
In the process of hammering out an agreement that pacified a bloodthirsty prosecutor,
Flynn's punishment for doing nothing wrong has been reduced. President Trump's former national
security adviser will still have to sell his home to defray the costs of a federal onslaught.
Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule? The question is a rhetorical one.
He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd.
Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki
leaks,
all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money.
Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal
functioning of US government.
I fully concur with the commentary. Once the Martha Stewart case went forward and this "law"
was not challenged, my view, at that time and since, was that the yankee imperium had entered
the post-rule of law era. This is amply shown by the use this "law" has been put to. In the
end, it was creeping extra-legal fascism that destroyed the rule of law in the US, not
creeping socialism as was feared by certain elements in the '60s. The existence and
enforcement of this provision is an affront to basic decency and the rule of law, and the
legitimacy of any state which upholds such an extra-legal provision is non-existent.
Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki
leaks
Even if this is the case, why should this be a big deal? It's hardly a secret that US
politicians take bribes, ahem I meant political donations, from Israel, Saudi Arabia, China
and probably many others. Before one takes this farce of selectively law enforcement
seriously there needs to be a massive cleanup of root and branch of the entire US regime
before any of this can be seen as legitimate.
Was this Ilana's piece? I could have sworn I was reading Alan Dershowitz. Which is not a good
thing. Many observers feel Zionist Alan has gone round-the-bend in his analysis.
Anyone feeling sorry for the wayward General is wasting their psychic energy. First he's
got exposure in several areas. Second, it's likely he made a great deal with Mueller. Third,
he'll probably get a pardon soon (he's a great guy you know).
So the nonsense falls on deaf ears. Flynn didn't have to lie. He did it for a specific
reason which we don't know yet. And he didn't have to deal. He could have depended on Trump
whilst not rating-out his colleagues (like Manafort). Flynn as his lawyer made
clear , "has a story to tell" because he's guilty.
So when Flynn was texting during Trump's inaugural address he was probably just tying up
lose ends in various deals, all of which were legit (sure)? Like a potential kidnapping for
his client Turkey? Maybe the FBI was complicit in compelling him to do that too. We shall
see?
A weird country, the USA.
Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other
country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical
industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held
in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused.
Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When
he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming
Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate.
Flynn broke no laws establishing relations with Russia for the incoming president. But when
he started lobbying UN members on behalf of Israel, that's when he crossed the legal
line.
He's lucky he only got charged with lying.
But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony
of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting endless
wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel commit crimes
against humanity in Palestine.
I am no fan of American criminal law or its enforcement. They hardly seem to be the kind of
adjunct to the "demovracy" the US seeks to export that it will find helpful in the sales
pitch. However I am amazed that sophisticated people questioned by the FBI don't use an
equivalent to the Fifth Amendment by saying "I don't intend to lie to you but refuse to
answer any of your questions unless I am immune to prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18
[maybe adding 'except for denying an act which is itself a crime that I have been told is
being investigated']".
By the way is it entirely clear that the Logan Act didn't make what Flynn was doing
criminal, ridiculous though that would be?
I agree with much else you are saying here (though from memory, Martha Stewart's behaviour
was clearly white-collar criminal, on top of the lie, unlike Flynn's stupid and inoccuous lie
or simple misinterpretation).
ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite pastimes:
passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements.
That is wrong on so many levels.
i. Your bare-faced lie of saying 'Security Council' instead of 'General Assembly', when
you are knowing very well that the U.S.A. is *always* vetoing anything critical of Israel in
the SC, sole exception being when former Pres. Hopey-Changey Hussein was ordering an
abstention on one late in his second term. One of his very few good acts as Pres.
ii. The implicit assumption that Israeli settlements are a good thing. I am sure that you
would enjoying it if you were to live somewhere where maniacal strangers who hate you were
trying to occupying all high positions, wandering about with automatic and semi-automatic
rifles, destroying or seizing your neighbour's (and your) houses, destroying olive groves,
and monopolising the water supply, etc.
Palestine used to have a proportionally large Christian population. In the early stages of
their departure, Israeli jews were the main driver.
Disingenuous or what?
iii. Why should the main emphasis of any contact with Russia be illegal (under
international law) jewish settlements! You cannot even say Israeli, because it is outside the
borders of Israel.
That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing
Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint.
Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in
the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of
war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys".
The frantic tone of the article shows just how much damage Flynn's testimony has done to
Trump. What Flynn tells us is that the initiative to contact the Russians came from Trump,
not the Russians. That's absolutely damning for Trump. The evidence previously available
suggested that the initiative had come from the Russians, pointing towards the possibility
that the rather naive Trump team had been more or les set up by the Russians. Now we know
that Trump solicited Russian intervention, which tends to prove that he is indeed Putin's
stooge or, even worse, the stooge of the gangsters behind Putin. That may well be the deep,
dark secret that Trump was afraid Putin would tell. The onus is now on Trump to prove that he
isn't an agent of a foreign power and the only way he can do that is to get Putin out of
Ukraine.
It's actually beyond weird; it's absolutely mind boggling. Utterly twisted. Everything of
value has been twisted and perverted beyond anyone's imagination. One huge plastic garbage
dump.
It's a huge corrupt cesspool, yet most people here see nothing but El Dorado and think
it's the Savior of the World all rolled into one.
Trump as prez narrowly beating Hillary in a scam democracy-esque "election" and congress
bowing and scraping to Netanyahu pretty much sums it all up perfectly.
The place is as full of morons as ignorant as they are arrogant, just like the goofy
looking, sounding and acting clowns who rule them. It's utterly beyond redemption.
On another note, can you comment on and/or suggest some good sources for studying the
bankers of Amsterdam of the 16th and 17th centuries, including the Dutch West India Co??
But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony
of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting
endless wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel
commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.
Yup. A nation of Zio-bankster cucks and that includes the vast majority of Jews as well as
goyim.
Many warned us of it when they opposed the Federal Reserve and when the Zio-Bolshie
banksters suckered the US into WW 1 & 2 on their behalf, but we never even know their
names today, and we have next to nobody telling the truth today.
continually helping Israel commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.
And elsewhere. Wherever the banksters demand control, which is nearly everywhere.
Those damned cagaderos have turned the whole planet into one big one!!
What is the problem of having contacts with Russia ?
As to the Ukraine, USA, EU and NATO should leave there.
We in Europe do not want the war NATO, USA and EU are seeking.
We want normal relations with the country we had a lot of trade with, much of which has
disappeared because of sanctions, made possible by the deaths of over 300 passengers aboard
MH17.
My country, the Netherlands, objected most to sanctions, we exported a lot to Russia, on the
day after the disaster objections had vanished.
So it was very lucky for those who wanted to impose sanctions that a plane from Schiphol
Amsterdam was hit.
Despite that Russia just has disadvantages of the disaster, and the west advantages, the
continuing investigation, that will never end, Peyton Place, does anything possible to
continue stating vague accusations against Putin.
Suspect Ukraine has been permitted to take part in the investigations.
To Mercer,
Great great article. You've created a description of events that is so absorbing and brings
up such deep anger in the reader towards the increasingly exposed psychopathic and psychotic,
that we are collectively inspired to end the influence of these creeps. Thank You!
Flynn is DIA. He's an actor in this psyop. It's not the crime that counts, it's making a
crime understandable by the audience.
Consider that Petraeus fornicated with one of his gun runners. Oh the crime! The US
Treasury is an open vault to these elite assassins – there's no law here, but that's
not a problem as far as the public will ever know. Neither is the carnage, which is all
carefully hidden from view. Deliberately destroying civilian populations is never made
obvious.
Occassionally, the FBI and the press will shame one of the royals in a carefully crafted
stage production (or tennis match) as competition naturally heats up amongst members of the
owner-ruler class. Press mockingbirds will disagree back and forth with one another only
adding necessary fuel to the drama.
The "crime" is usually an overwrought, completely specious claim of dishonesty and
sometimes a bedroom indiscretion to titillate American prurience. Taken very seriously by at
least part of the press, but ridiculed by another. The leading figure nevertheless emerges
tarnished. The CIA's Andrea Mitchell will shed a tear on NBC (as she did for hero mass
murderer Petraeus). This is an instruction for a simple minded population, including any
number of rote evangelicals.
Now Flynn's resume includes a prominent role in the post 9/11 war of terror. An
environment that doesn't have anything to do with the American sheep's warped delusions of
what the law even means. However, enourmous efforts are always made to indemnify criminal
violence through legal mechanism.
The guilded cage for American mafia member Flynn meant he killed as many people as
possible in the two major strategic theaters, started his own privateering operation once
some of the shooting quieted down, looted and cashed in as a international contractor into
imaginable wealth and is now playin himself in his own wrist slappin' psyop.
What's next is predictable. Go on to Wall Street to join an investment firm, accept
academic honors, visiting professorships, write a book and maybe even join a "peace" movement
to reduce violence – writing an op-ed for Tom's Dispatch. God speed Ó
Floinn!
This doesn't impede the normal function of Government, whatever the fuck that is. Bread
and circuses are what the Government delivers daily in darkness. Look at it this way, this
investigation is a new product off the assembly line. It's not production in a simple sense,
but the externalities are large enough that crisis and drama are a tenuous key to economic
growth.
Think of the noise as a large ignot being forged in a factory filed with fire and noise.
The end product is probably something you don't really need, so the need is created. It's
Friday, let's see what the press sluice gate intends to drown your mind with next. Here we
all are – tapping away at our keyboards and iphones in a factory with no pay. You could
say we're volunteers for the Government, something it needs to function normally.
Via Wilkipedia, coup deata is an "illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to
unseat the sitting executive."[1]
... In looser usage, as in "intelligence coup" or "boardroom coup", the term simply refers to gaining a sudden advantage on a rival.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit, Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring, there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself. ..."
"... Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky. ..."
"... "Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor now at Duke Law School. ..."
"... The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell, it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox. ..."
"... Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's word would be enough at this point. ..."
"... Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor. ..."
"... Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing will continue to hobble the Trump administration. ..."
"... Larry Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC. ..."
"... This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. ..."
"... After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime. ..."
"... This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy. ..."
"... It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call. ..."
"... I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo ..."
"... His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks. ..."
"... Mueller was a liar from the very beginning.Mueller lies to congress, commits perjury; Weapons of Mass Destruction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF6WpWAxy8 ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it. ..."
"... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what their agents say you said. ..."
Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president
himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit,
Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal
by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring,
there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself.
By securing a guilty plea from Flynn, Mueller has effectively bought his team precious time to uncover the "smoking gun" that
has eluded them thus far. Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is insurance against a presidential firing. At this stage, firing Mueller
would lend credence to Democrats' accusations that the president obstructed justice when he asked former FBI Director James Comey
to go easy on Flynn. Of course, Trump didn't do himself any favors when he tweeted that Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President
Mike Pence and the FBI (though Trump lawyer John Dowd later copped to writing the tweet, it certainly didn't help Trump's case for
firing Mueller).
Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests
that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky.
As Mueller's probe has gotten closer to Trump's inner orbit, speculation has risen over whether Trump might find a way to shut
it down. The Flynn deal may make that harder. For one thing, it shows that Mueller is making progress.
"Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending
off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal
prosecutor now at Duke Law School.
The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional
crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell,
it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's
attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
Furthermore, as one legal expert told Bloomberg, it's difficult to see how Flynn's testimony will be enough to incriminate another
member of Trump's inner circle. While Flynn's many alleged misdeeds have been chronicled in the press (most notoriously his alleged
plan to kidnap Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen), given what's been reported so far, it's hard to see how Flynn's prosecution ties
in to some broader narrative.
Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's
word would be enough at this point.
Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other
high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better
witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor.
Some experts believe that Mueller's probe is now almost certain to reach a step beyond that. "Before this is wrapped up, Mueller's
going to request an interview with the president, and he may even request it under oath," says Amy Sabrin, a Washington lawyer who
worked for Bill Clinton on the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. "And then what is Trump going to do?"
Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats
who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. At the same time, it will allow Mueller and his team of hopelessly compromised Hillary
Clinton supporters to fend off their critics, who've recently been emboldened by reports that
Peter Strzok , an FBI agent who played an important role in the early stages of what became the Mueller investigation - and who
also helped supervise the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information – expressed anti-Trump
sentiments in a series of text messages to his colleague/mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing
will continue to hobble the Trump administration.
Why are they looking for a fucking smoking gun, when there is no motive? What is the motive, illegal improved relations with
Russia? Isn't that a Presidents job to use his mandate to change course?
Gimme some public hangings, come on, everyone wants it.
Mueller is the running man in this little episode in history. He's the cowboy in the trail swishing the branches across the
tracks, and then stomping down false trails before cutting off sharply into the woods.
As old as he is, he only needs to keep running a few more years at most so that he can die free and not in prison.
I was going to say the same thing. I read the bloomberg article (linked on Drudge) like 20min ago...Tyler used the same pics
as well. Is this what "Journalism" has come to? C'mon Tyler! don't get sloppy here.
mueller, comey, holder, clinton crime syndicate is a round robin circle jerk that has been operating since Arkansas days.
Larry
Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire
justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC.
This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. He rightly compares this to the plot to
kill hitler which failed. The plotters were sure they had succeeded until they were lined up against the wall and shot.
After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon
and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable
loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime.
What they don't understand is that Trump may become even more dangerous to them if he is no longer in office. A Trump-Bannon
media machine could do a lot of damage with nothing to restrain it. Look for Muller to tie Bannon into all of this, because Bannon
now has a national platform and is too dangerous left on his own to say and do whatever he wants.
Apparently Mueller and the douche bag who wrote this article are the only people in the world who still believe this is a viable
investigation. Mueller has zero chance of convicting anyone after what has been revealed about his investigators as well as his
personal involvement in Uranium One. Not to mention, btw, that he is required by law to recuse himself because of his close relationship
to one of the key witnesses/actors in this investigation, Comey. It's not even up for debate, it's mandatory and with that being
written quite clearly, Mueller still didn't do it. Now it is revealed that Mueller sat with Trump in a job interview for acting
head of the FBI while knowing he could very possibly (and was) be selected as a special prosecutor for an investigation into Trump/Russia
collusion and he never told Trump. Apparently this is also an act requiring recusal.
Mueller will be lucky to not be sitting in jail after this fiasco. He's crooked as hell and his cover has been blown. Just
a matter of time at this point as we are witnessing almost daily revelations of misconduct by his investigators as well as other
high level FBI/DOJ officials.
This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year
with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials
were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy.
Yeah. It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good
witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call.
I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo , but
a cold hard analysis of fact will show that it is a case no prosecutor would ever take to court.
That's the exact thing the puzzles me. Watching details unfold. They screwed him. Set him up on this specific one. Why plead
guilty? Flynn doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't know what he's doing.
His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most
likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting
that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks.
Flynn's only criminal act was a misstatement. That is what they would have called it if Hillary had been caught up in the sting.
This is the best they have been able to produce after this tedious attempt to construct a criminal plot that would take down Trump.
What they have managed to do is focus a national spot light onto their own misdeeds. The middle management of the FBI better start
looking after their own interest. The Agency has a litany of misdeeds in its dossier. If it plans on surviving the ongoing fire
storm, those infected members within the Agency must be triaged.
Maybe Mueller will not survive, if compromising leaks start leaking. One email or conversation between Strzok, Comey and Hillary/Lynch
how to exonerate Hillary and to eavesdrop Trump and bring down Trump or people around him and Mueller is finished.
I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save
him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it.
Oh wait, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin lied
but they didn't admit it. I wonder if that's because the person that interviewed them was a biased Hillary supporter????
Trump as Chief Executive needs require the FBI to record all interviews with witnesses and suspects.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-reverses-longstanding-interview... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any
witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what
their agents say you said.
"... The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect. ..."
"... Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order to get this amazingly low debt service. ..."
"... Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing? If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at artificially low levels in perpetuity. ..."
"... I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans". ..."
"... For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us, especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show. Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least, totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them. ..."
"... poll end of October 2017 shows widespread fed up with government policies and war https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/news/cki-real-clear-politics-foreign-policy-poll/ ..."
"... It is impressive how the Democrats do nothing, but nothing at all against the catastrophic tax 'reform', instead - me too! ..."
"... I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately $3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town. ..."
"... We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes? ..."
"... You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments. ..."
"... People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets available at depressed prices ..."
"... There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these technologies existed. ..."
"... Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to create much flow on to the rest of the population. ..."
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday said the tax cuts included in the tax reform
package Republican lawmakers crafted in conjunction with the Trump Administration have to be
deficit neutral so as to conform with budget reconciliation rules.
The U.S. Republican tax cut plan that President Donald Trump wants passed by the end of the
year is unlikely to trigger a big deficit expansion because it will spur more investment and
job growth, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told Reuters in an interview on
Wednesday.
"Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also knows that you
have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take-home pay, that means higher tax
revenues ," Ryan told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."
The tax overhaul legislation that Ryan shepherded through the House -- the Senate takes up
its version this week -- would add at least $1 trillion to budget deficits over the next
decade, even when accounting for economic growth, according to independent tax analysts.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday said House Republicans will aim to cut spending
on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs next year as a way to trim the federal deficit .
"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle
the debt and the deficit ," Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio
show.
And no. The Democrats aren't any better. Look at the trillions Obama handed to Wall Street.
That wasn't even a tax cut, it was a give-away. Obamacare is a sham, willfully constructed in
way that makes sure it can't survive. The Democrats only pretend to care for the people. As
soon as they again have a majority and fake intent for pro-social reforms the Repubs will again
whine about the deficit and the Democrats will be happy to fold.
The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class
while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin
Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect.
Indeed. Two faces, same coin. The msm desperately wants to keep the relevant the age-old
rope-a-dope of the Demotards vs. Rethuglicans 2K17! Jesus, ever-loving-Christ, though, you
fuck with social security and Medicare and you bring on the wrath of AARP's membership.
Release the BLUE-HAIRS!
Can't wait, but that is another struggle for another day. In the mean time, I notice that
even the mention of Paul Ryan elicits a shudder. Such a slime.
It [was] a remarkably low $240B as of 2016. Does this mean that the Fed can just keep short term
rates low or even reduce them, vis-a-vis the Japanese model, and allow U.S. govt debt to grow
to arbitrarily high levels?
Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order
to get this amazingly low debt service. Now let's suppose over the next 50yrs our national
debt grows to a ridiculous $100T, if the fed puts short term rates at 0.1% then our annual
debt service will still be at the same levels or less.
Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing?
If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at
artificially low levels in perpetuity.
Here's to the evolving True Political
Awakening .
Move beyond the two-faced monkeys; the 2-faced division-makers; the 2 lying parties. Move
beyond them into yourself, your own mind and thoughts, owned by no-one; a critical and
independent thinker who seeks the truth.
I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement
reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans".
There was a large mound formed recently over the grave of former Republican senator from WI
Bob Lafollette Sr., this protrusion was caused by his rapidly spinning corpse.
For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us,
especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show.
Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least,
totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them.
The Democrats, all while the GOP Tax SCAM was being shoved down our gobs, wasted all of
their time and "emotions" on a witch hunt to toss Al Franken outta the Senate. Franken is not
my favorite Senator by a long shot, but this is yet another chapter of the Democraps ACORNing
their own purportedly in the name of "taking the moral high ground." My Aunt Fanny.
Complicit, greedy, conniving, venal, deplorable bastards the whole d*mn lot with the
possible exception of Bernie Sanders (no great shakes but the pick of the litter).
Ugh. Don't get me started on all of those dual Israeli/USA citizens in riddling our
Congress. They are ALL in favor of this Jerusalem travesty with Schmuck Schumer leading the
charge. That's not about Trump... or not much about Trump. I place blame on worthless scum
like Schumer.
This is why people voted for Trump: they could see the worthlessness of both parties. Of
course, voting for Trump was a complete Mug's game, as for sure, the way things have turned
out was a foregone conclusion.
I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security
funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately
$3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town.
We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in
place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes?
top rate on regular income: 91%
top rate on capital gains: 25%
top rate on corporate tax: 52%
The top income tax tier back then was $400,000 - adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars,
that's about $10 million. So anyone with an income of $10 million would still get a take-home
pay of $1 million a year. Seems like the right thing to do, doesn't it?
Good one b, the demodogs will stoop their feet point figures so they can raise lots of
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay their friends the consultants and lose more seats. It's what they do
best.
I've almost given up. It's not just amerika; lookit Australia this week where the citizens
are being distracted by a same sex marriage beatup which should have been settled in 5
minutes years ago - meanwhile the last vestiges of Australia's ability to survive as a
sovereign state are being flogged off to anyone with a fat wedge in their kick.
Aotearoa isn't much better the 'new' government which was elected primarily because the
citizens were appalled to discover that for about the first time in 150 years, compatriots -
compatriots with jobs in 'the gig economy' were homeless in huge numbers, has just announced
that the previous government's housing policy was a total mess, and that fixing the problem
will be difficult -really Jacinda we never woulda guessed, I guess what yer really trying to
say is nothing is gonna change.
The englanders are in even worse trouble with their brexit mess, the political elite is
choosing to ignore a recent Northern Ireland poll which revealed that most people in the
north would rather hook up with Ireland than stay with an non EU UK, so the pols there are
arguing over semantics about the difference between "regulatory alignment" and "regulatory
equivalence" as it applies to Ulster while the pound is sinking so fast it is about to
establish equivalence with the euro by xmas.
No one is paying attention to what is really happening as in between giving us the lowdown on
which 2nd rate mummer was rude to a 3rd rate thespian and advertorials about the best
chronometer (who even wears a watch in 2017?) for that man in your life, the media simply
doesn't have the time much less the will to tell the citizens how quickly their lives are
about to go down the gurgler.
The only salient issue is - will the shit hit the fan before the laws are in place to
silence, lock up and butcher dissenters, or will there be a brief period where we hit the
barricades and have a moment of glory before humanity gets to enjoy serfdom Mk2?
b, have you really taken a look at federal government spending? What is the ratio of spending
by the German government between social programs and discretionary spending for defense,
agriculture subsidies, infrastructure, etc?
The majority of federal government spending is non-discretionary social entitlement
spending with the biggest being health care spending. Just Medicare & Medicaid is a third
of all federal government spending. Then you have to add health care spending for federal
government employees and members of Congress, Tricare and VA. With health care costs growing
at 9% each and every year as it has for the past 30 years, medical related expenditures as a
share of total federal government spending will continue to rise.
Deficits will continue to grow as these entitlement programs grow automatically as
eligibility grows. Even if all defense expenditures were zeroed out, the federal government
would still run a deficit.
You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative
yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments.
European junk bonds with 10 year duration yielding less than 10 yr US Treasury bond. Loss
making, junk rated European companies raising even more intermediate term debt at 0.001%.
Corporations borrowing to buy back stock. The Swiss National Bank creating money out of thin
air and owning $85 billion of US equity in major US companies like Apple & Google. The
Bank of Japan owning a third of all Japanese government bonds outstanding and the Top 10
holder of the companies in the Nikkei 100 index. Financial speculation off the charts across
the globe.
People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is
like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which
they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to
pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no
printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows
up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the
supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the
economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets
available at depressed prices
As for the debt owed by the US the privately owned Fed will ensure the government can
borrow whatever is needed for interest payments since they can create an infinite supply of
money by acquiring junk and calling them assets. Out pal OPEC (Saudis) keeps Petro dollar
(USD ) in demand and exchange rates are set within agreed upon limits by the worlds central
banks under the BIS, with input from various shadowy groups like Bilderbergers, trilaterals
and CFR. And if all else fails, an attack on the USD will result in the military option being
used
To remain in power corrupt governments rely on a citizen base that is uneducated or
misinformed, busy surviving to pay taxes and daily expenses, is dependent on government and
in debt and is well entertained. They must also be divided by religion, race, social, gender,
age and party (secular religion) and given a common external enemy to fear.
The system is working to perfection. Neoliberal economics is the icing on the cake and is
the gift that keeps on giving to the chosen ones.
Check out the pdf on money creation by the Bank of England
There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to
campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video
conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign
rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care
of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of
Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these
technologies existed.
I think people are just too lazy to make the effort. Most elections people are just too
lazy to even vote.
While I agree that money can just be created there is a limit to that particularly when
low constraints on consumable supplies run parallel to established shortfalls on finite goods
such as houses, land, food etc. Inflation runs rampant and we weak humans distract ourselves
with cheap baubles instead of creating useful shit and putting a roof over the heads of our
children - "waddaya want for xmas kid, a freehold shithole or a new VR headset?" "I'll take
the vive Dad".
Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by
encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright
production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like
railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into
health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to
create much flow on to the rest of the population.
"... an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent. ..."
"... The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request. ..."
"... All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges; ..."
"... I doubt that Strzok worked alone. ..."
"... This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did . ..."
Following this weekend's shocking disclosure that Peter Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
of Russia-Trump election (having previously handled the Clinton email server probe and interviewing Michael Flynn) after allegedly
having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress (who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe), an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested
information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial
interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent.
In his letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Grassley writes:
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political
influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James
Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities
related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request.
In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise,
to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017:
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then Director Comey's draft or final statement closing
the Clinton investigation, including all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing Secretary
Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless";
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation
without recommending any charges;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the investigation into potential collusion
by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or authorized by Mr.
Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's interactions with Christopher Steele relating
to the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any communications
regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr. Steele;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any instance of the FBI relying on, or referring
to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other judicial
process;
All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as well as all related 1A documents (including
any contemporaneous handwritten notes); and
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or
favorable statements about Hillary Clinton.
Since this will be the first - and so far only - glimpse inside the ideological motivations inside Mueller's prosecutorial team
the public will be greatly interested in finding what they reveal, especially those which show any direct communication between Strzok
and Comey.
"Whoa, and there's more on Peter Strzok. He exchanged anti-Trump texts with Lisa Page, another Mueller team member with whom
he was having an affair. She's deputy to Andrew McCabe."
"Surprise – it was Hillary Clinton supporter Peter Strzok told Comey that there was no proof of "intent" – BEFORE he had interviewed
HRC."
And of course, he was involved with the sketchy interview of Cheryl Mills
And Heather Samuelson
And voila, they were given immunity
He allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview with Hillary
So Strzok exonerated Hillary, led the probe into Weiner's laptop that cleared Hillary, allowed major conflicts in the Clinton
investigation, and then took control of the Steele dossier probe into Trump, all while being a rabid anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan
in his personal life.
And when Mueller learned of this behavior he reassigned him instead of firing him, in order to prevent word getting out to
the public.
Sessions is culpable in the obstruction of justice UNLESS there is something big going on behind the scenes. The FBI will not
provide requested documentation. The choice is going to come down to reorganizing the FBI from outside that institution. I wouldn't
have a clue about legality or process of doing that, but that is what it will come down to. You can't expect these criminals to
do it on their own or to voluntarily place their heads in a noose with documentation.
They hire agents directly out of law school (at least it used to be that way). The idea was they NOT have any life experience
(or independent judgment). It's no accident.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State
& their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we
are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram
Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization
Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication
lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure. Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence.
Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model
of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep
State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and
it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and
sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal
Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite. The Deep State will always exist. However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized
Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
I'd bet there is more to the Pete Strzok story. I don't think Mueller canned him, and tried to keep that on the down-low, based
solely on Strzok's overt, naked partisanship. I'd bet that the content of Strzok's text messages, rather than the (partisan) tone
, will be revealing. Things are heating up...
How about a paragraph or 3 of detail, juxtaposing all of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors against the Klinton machine? Keep
in mind however, you must go back 30+ years, because there are documented incidents (not rumors, innuendo or hype) of criminality
from the Klinton crime syndicate. Hopefully you have likewise documentation for Trump...
" Trumps Guilty" Guilty of what exactly? Mueller and the boys have been at it for almost a year now and coming up with a big
nothing burger. The charges Flynn peaded guilty to have nothing to do with colusion with the Russians simply ommiting details
of conversations with the Russian ambassador. Alan Dershowicz a prominate progressive and constitutional scholar and no friend
of Trump has stated in an interview he sees no basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
I doubt that Strzok worked alone. He apparently headed up the Hillary Protection Team (HPT) at the FBI. How did he
keep Hillary updated? Via Loretta Lynch?
This info request is limited...what about the Huma/Weiner computer?
The Senate smells blood in the water, but doesn't sense who will win, hence the cautious demand letter.
Pretty clear that FBI and much of DOJ have gone rogue, and no longer respond to the rest of the government.
This scandal will be so significant that it makes Watergate look like jaywalking.
You will know when the tide has turned when Democrat Senators go for DOJ blood (in order to distance themselves).
All of this will eventually be shown as something far more sinister than mere partisan agents. And those details will reveal
a whole new pattern of illegal, immoral, and traitorous conduct.
This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed
Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and
their associates.
Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she
signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper,
who made the server possible, testified
that indeed she did .
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a
Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie. And that meant he was lying. Not only did Clinton's people
lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.
The fix had been in all along.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FBI
please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December
11, 2017....
First few questions for Mr. Strzok:
How many cell phones have you owned/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used a throw away phone?
How many computers have you had/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used/controlled a private server?
Have you ever thrown away a blackberry?
If you wanted to have private, secure communication regarding your obstruction of justice activities, would you avoid using
your office computer or cell phone?
I remain skeptical. After 46% of Americans are informed of some wrongdoing, Trump discovers it too.
Silly me, thinking that Trump, as president and having every law enforcement/spy agency at his command, should be finding out
long before me and I should be reading about what he DID, not what he is TWEETING.
Why isn't he personally confronting the principals? Remember "Your Fired"? I didn't and still don't watch TV, but I thought
he was famous for calling the person directly accountable before him, not tweeting or writing a letter to the editor or a prayer
request.
Trump didn't have this guy removed. His own people did, long ago. This is like the Mafia seeing a made man is so out of hand
that the Mafia itself turns him in.
We should be keen on watching results, not the evidence of what abject morons we are as Americans to have a government so nakedly
corrupt. I think the main problem is Americans, despite great genetics and being born into such wealthy conditions, are operating
with effective IQ's below sub-saharan Africa. If you take in television news as information, that's all a critically thinking
person needs to know about you. You're a three year old in terms of logic and reason.
I'm just too worn out with victory being right around the corner since at least as far back as Whitewater.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
So the anti-Russian campaign probably started after Sochi Olympics if nor earlier. Now we see just a new stage of it.
Notable quotes:
"... Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards. ..."
"... West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world! ..."
"... For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ..."
"... So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]). ..."
"... I stopped reading the FT years ago . For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass * politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are). ..."
Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either
Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts
accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian
Empire the day afterwards.
West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and
conquer the world!
Extracts from the FT article: "Battle for Ukraine:
How the west lost Putin"
It was past 10pm and the German chancellor was sitting in a Hilton hotel conference room
in Brisbane, Australia. Her interlocutor was the implacable Vladimir Putin. For nearly two hours,
the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the
cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had
ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The chancellor steered the conversation back to eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists
were engaged in a bloody struggle against the western-backed government in Kiev, according
to a person familiar with the meeting [WHO? No names, no pack drill?]. Since
the crisis began, Ms Merkel [Why Ms? She is "Frau" and she is married. Does the journalist
not know that? Does he think that Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants to keep her marital status a secret?
Fucking PC crap!] had worked hard to extract some sense from Mr Putin of what he wanted - something
she could use to construct an agreement. When he finally offered a solution, she was shocked.
Mr Putin declared Kiev should deal with the rebels the way he had dealt with Russia's breakaway
Chechnya region: by buying them off with autonomy and money. A reasonable idea, perhaps, to an
ex-KGB colonel. But for an East German pastor's daughter, with a deeply-ingrained sense of fairness,
this was unacceptable.
Ms Merkel had asked her closest advisers to stay outside during the Brisbane meeting,
on November 15 last year. "She wanted to be alone . . . to test whether she could get Putin to
be more open about what he really wants",says someone briefed on the conversation [WHO?].
"But he wouldn't say what his strategy is, because he doesn't know".
For Moscow, too, something snapped. Weeks later, a Kremlin official [WHO?]
dismissed the notion, often cited in diplomatic circles, that there had ever been a "special relationship"
between the two leaders. "Putin and Merkel could never stand each other", he told the Financial
Times. "Of course, they are professionals, so they tried to make the best of it for a long time.
But that seems to have changed now."
The Merkel-Putin encounter in Australia marked a turning point. After a year of crisis,
the west realised that it had been pursuing an illusion: for all its post-communist tribulations,
Russia was always seen to be on an inexorable path of convergence with Europe and the west - what a senior German official [WHO?]
calls the notion that "in the end,
they'll all become like us".
So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the
unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled,
leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its
costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the
ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state
what the evidence is.]).
According to a senior Washington official [WHO?], Mr Poroshenko,
the oligarch elected Ukraine's president in May, was anxious to hold face-to-face meetings with
Mr Putin. But he wanted other leaders in the room capable of holding Mr Putin to commitments.
Ms Merkel was the obvious choice. "The administration's view is that she's the best interlocutor
that we have in the west with Putin," says an ex-US diplomat [WHO?].
US President Barack Obama has held his own share of calls with Mr Putin, but he has largely
taken a back seat. US insiders [WHO?] say the president feels Mr Putin
was unresponsive to efforts to build a relationship. "Obama sees the world in win-win terms, Putin
sees it in zero-sum terms", says the ex-diplomat. The two have a visible lack of chemistry. In
Mr Obama's words, Mr Putin has a "kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the
classroom".
Diplomats suspect [WHICH DIPLOMATS?] Mr Putin is surrounded
by yes-men afraid to give him the unvarnished truth. They suggest, for example, that he has been
surprised by the strength of EU unity over sanctions.
She prepares meticulously, studying maps of eastern Ukraine and poring over them in meetings
and phone calls with Mr Putin. "There are maps and charts, with roads and checkpoints", says a European diplomat [WHO?]. "She has these details. She knows about
them."
In public, Ms Merkel has not said Mr Putin has lied, but she has in private
[TO WHOM?]. "'He's lying', that's what she says to all the other leaders," says
the EU diplomat.
A partygoer [WHO?] close to Ms Merkel recalls her saying little
about the disaster. "The chancellor doesn't like to speak about something until she is sure of
her facts. But she was shaken. It was horrendous."
"The Russians just weren't credible. They got beaten", says a senior Washington official
[WHO?].
Asked why Mr Putin did not turn MH17 into an opportunity for reconciliation, a
former senior Kremlin official [WHO?] said: "Because he was insulted. He acted emotionally.
Because your side came out before anything was clear, accusing him of all sorts of things".
and on and on and on.
I've just got fed up of noting the unsubstantiated statements. And to make all this even more
annoying,each time I cut and pasted, I received the following notification off FT:
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others
using the link below, do not cut & paste the article."
I stopped reading the FT years ago. For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had
a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass*
politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably
one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are).
The thing is, none of this should surprise us as established journalism has only got
worse. Alternative media fortunately has grown on the back of this atrophy of the circle jerk
club. What this goes to show is that the discerning news consumer now looks elsewhere for its
news because the Pork Pie News Networks are so transparently bullshit in the extreme and even
more unapologetic when they are caught with their pants down pretending to be milking grandma's
cow in the middle of the night.
If Putin became 'emotional' every time he was insulted by the west, he wouldn't have gotten out
of bed since about 2003. Jeez, the crap these guys write.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
So neo McCarthyism witch hunt that is rampant now is just more of the same.
Notable quotes:
"... The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda. ..."
"... One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media outlet. ..."
"... Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl. ..."
"... Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified. ..."
"... Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer "fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions. ..."
"... All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is." ..."
"... Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda. ..."
"... As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable" to the US establishment. ..."
"... I love it when .gov shows their hand. ..."
"... Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. ..."
"... Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrativ ..."
"... Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for god sake. ..."
"... The US Propaganda Machine has just jumped the shark. ..."
"... It jumped the shark awhile ago. Like all corrupt governments, the government of the United States accuses others of behavior the US blatantly engages in itself. A few gems regarding our own "online troll army": http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaga... ..."
"... And let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision to repeal the ban on government propaganda being directed at American citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc... ..."
"... Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time. ..."
"... The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time. ..."
"... So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for that one too? ..."
"... Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current psyop. ..."
"... US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech? ..."
Submitted by Paul Joseph Watson via PrisonPlanet.com,
Bloggers, conspiracy theorists and people who challenge establishment narratives on the Internet were all likened to ISIS terrorists
during a chilling Congressional hearing which took place yesterday.
The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information,"
and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda.
One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media
last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media
outlet.
Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge
establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they
find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl.
Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT
as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified.
"By using the Internet to mobilize people that feel displaced, that feel like they've been on the outskirts of society, and give
them a place where they can find a sense of belonging, and maybe make a difference in their own way, and it's a problem," she said.
Wahl went on to bemoan the fact that conspiracy theorists were "shaping the discussion online, on message boards, on Twitter,
on social media," before asserting that the web had become a beacon of "disinformation, false theories, people that are just trying
to make a name for themselves, bloggers or whatever, that have absolutely no accountability for the truth, that are able to rile
up a mass amount of people online."
Committee Chairman Ed Royce then proceeded to accuse people on YouTube of using "raw violence" to advance conspiracy theories.
Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer
"fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were
challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions.
All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we
had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find
out where that truth is, just how bad that is."
Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric, the real story revolves around the fact that Washington was caught off guard by the rapid growth
of RT, with Hillary Clinton and others having acknowledged the fact that the U.S. is "losing the information war," which is why they
are now desperately trying to denigrate the Russian broadcaster.
Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy
that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda.
There's no mystery behind why RT has become so big – telling the truth is popular – but because Washington finds it impossible
to compete on that basis, it has been forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and ludicrous comparisons to ISIS in a desperate bid
to level the playing field.
As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda
system, is intolerable" to the US establishment.
_SILENCER
I love it when .gov shows their hand.
Fukushima Sam
You fucking bastards, you give me a version of events like "9/11" and the "Boston Marathon Bombing" that actually seem to jibe
with reality and maybe then I'll stop being a "conspiracy theorist".
LetThemEatRand
Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined
by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government.
nmewn
It should also be pointed out that Bernanke is now "a blogger" at the Brookings Institute and one helluva "conspiracy theorist"
in his own right...lol.
I guess some nutters are more equal than others ;-)
Supernova Born
Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number
of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrative)
clymer
Thanks RT for not thoroughly vetting that bitchy douche. Now if we could all go back to CNN like the nice little drones that
we are... (Lauren Lyster ended up at CBS - WTF is with RT hand-picking these opportunists - reminds of ironically of Yuri Bezmenov
speaking of hiring jouralists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
-- they didn't learn from their own program)
Captain Debtcrash
Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try
and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely
about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there
is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for
god sake.
Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're
gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some
point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time.
BLOTTO
I've post previously...but always a good read.
'What is a "conspiracy theorist?
The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy
theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim
that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food
corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington
D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.
People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you
is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.'
It's hilarious watching in the land of the free as they try to find a way around the First Amendment to ban RT.......
Gaius Frakkin
So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the
Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for
that one too?
So who are the REAL paranoid, deranged, scared out of their wits about losing power, conspiracy theorists?
Element
Like glib acceptance of any flaky old crap that drifts into your transom, you mean?
oh ... that's completely different ...
Right?
--
If people buy into nonsense and BS stories of their own volition, this is hardly going to be changed at the stroke of a pen
of a legislative chamber all agreeing on some policy of state action to ban or else accept some aspect of public discourse.
cro_maat
Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current
psyop.
TheFourthStooge-ing
US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are
simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing
in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech?
Sorry, US citizens, your propaganda techniques are too old by now. Most people know them. Especially the Russians:
The translator of this Russian article notes that America throwing more resources into the info war is a sign of Russia's victories
and America's agony in this theater of operations.
EU Observer: EU mulls response to Russia's information war
The Netherlands is funding a study on how the EU can fight back against Russia's "information
war", in one of several counter-propaganda initiatives.
The Dutch-sponsored study was launched in the New Year by the European Endowment for Democracy
(EED), a Brussels-based foundation.
But little happened until the Netherlands stepped in with the EED grant after a passenger plane,
flight MH17, was shot down over east Ukraine killing 193 Dutch nationals and 105 other people.
Evidence indicates Russia-controlled rebels caused the disaster using a Russia-supplied rocket
system.
But Russian state media have tried to sow suspicion the Ukrainian air force did it in order to
prompt Western intervention in the conflict
Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, and the UK are drafting an informal paper on how EU institutions
and Nato can co-ordinate "strategic communications"
Its foreign ministry spokesman, Karlis Eihenbaums, told this website that around 15 EU states
back the project and that the news broadcasts should be available in Russia if they can get past
its "jamming system".
But Riga is trying to play down expectations of a quick result.
"I don't think we can come to an agreement among the 28 [EU leaders] to come up with a new TV
station in Russian. Euronews is already doing news in Russian, so it'll be difficult to get an additional
channel", Latvian PM Laimdota Straujuma told press in the Latvian capital on Wednesday (7 January).
Well-funded Russian broadcasters, such as RT, have hired big names, including former CNN anchor
Larry King, and air programmes in English, French, German, and Spanish as well as Russian.
Their work is backed up by pseudo-NGOs.
Putting the Dutch grant in perspective, the British think-tank, Chatham House estimates the Russian
"NGO" component alone is worth $100 million a year.
Western media have caught Russian media using fake pictures and fake witness accounts of alleged
Ukrainian atrocities.
Eihenbaums noted that any EU news channel "must be attractive, but with accurate information
it must not be a propaganda organ".
He cited RFE/RFL, a US-funded broadcaster, and the BBC as models because they do both Ukraine-critical
and Russia-critical stories.
###
If you can't smell the excrement off that, then get thee to a medic!
Now, considering the piece above, try not to hold back a large guffaw for this one!
Know that when they speak of
Kyrzbekistan, they're not just stenographers, they're incompetent stenographers.
Take what
they say, turn it upside down, and you'll have a better take on reality.
THE MERKEL MYSTERY. I, like many, thought, when the Ukraine crisis began, that German Chancellor
Merkel would prove to be key in settling it. This has not proved to be the case at all; in fact
she often throws more fuel on the fire. I believe that
Gilbert Doctorow may have
the answer. In essence, he believes that Berlin dreams the "pre-WWI dream of Mitteleuropa"
with cheap, docile workers in Poland, Ukraine and the others forever. Of course, it hasn't worked
out very well, but that, he thinks, was the plan. There was no "End
of History" after all; a rebirth of history it seems.
"... the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. ..."
Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top FBI investigator into
'Russian meddling', agent
Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages
exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital
affair with).
Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI "agent's role in Clinton probe under review." Led Clinton
Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going
to wife of another FBI agent in charge.
Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own
wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation. And
wouldn't you know it, as CNN has
apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but
potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in
Comey's final statement to describe her email abuses as "extremely careless" rather than the
original language of "grossly negligent."
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar
for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key
phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the
matter.
Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private
email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier
draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the
source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people
reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the
matter.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former
Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he
was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with
an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those
seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation.
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.
Of course, as we noted a month ago (see:
First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail ), the
change in language was significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme
carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.
In fact, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the
handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison
...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to
his superior officer -- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both."
And just like that, the farce that has heretofore been referred to as the "Russian meddling
probe" has been exposed for what it really is...an extremely compromised political "witch
hunt".
As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost
election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!
This is the Mueller-Comey FBI crime family at its finest. James Comey was an highly paid
executive at Lockheed Martin just prior to being named FBI director, replacing his close
buddy Mueller who was FBI director. LM was also a high contributor to the Clinton Foundation
in its glory days, with suspicious ties to Comey's lawyer brother. Dickie Mueller seems to be
the brains of the whole cabal.
Where are the emails between this stork and the fbi page named kelly that he was having an
interoffice affair with? Its been proved she hated OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP of US(A). This stork
guy won't be getting the attention from this fbi page that he is in an interoffice
relationship with unless he acts the way she wants. Seems like these emails should be easy to
get by the lamestream wapo, failing nytimes, fakest of fake news cnn, etc.
When Strzok made the change, he provided incontrovertible proof of the FBI's obstruction
of justice in the Clinton case, as this article clearly explains:
Zero of this happens if the President hadn't been hammering in a public way for
intelligence leaks to be plugged and calling out the FBI and Comey relentlessly.....I think
it's a pretty good bet that one of the twenty seven leak investigations going on caught this
idiot..No way an Inspector General just happened upon Storks texts...that takes some
"wiretapping" or other counter measures..Now the dam has burst...Anyone defending the FBI and
it's integrity at this point needs to be hung...
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies
that it perpetuated.
Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread
benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the
current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The
American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in
history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
Notable quotes:
"... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor
"investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to
destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is
anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if
there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So
where is the evidence?
It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated
while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is
Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous
evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true
charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility
toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a
threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of
normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it
requires to justify its massive budget and power.
Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the
answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the
Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's
government is allied with his enemies?
How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to
overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have
Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United
States?
Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges
against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress
harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview
become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active
measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the
uranium sale was real.
Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists
been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?
Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.
The failure of the US and European media is extreme.
The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question
inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over
and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is
driven into the public's head.
Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his
"compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had
to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had
watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to
withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to
have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government
officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html
The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife,
was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the
"terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the
political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American
superpower?
Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why
was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?
Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no
media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?
Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was
on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.
Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why
would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost
his movement by claiming credit? https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/
Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it
is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.
And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and
the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has
removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.
So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are
led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?
Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?
"... This is not simply a tax bill: It is the last stage of a corporate coup that has been slow-walking its intentions for decades. ..."
"... non quid pro quo, non problemo. ..."
"... Observing from abroad and therefore at a loss. Did this tax bill sink in with those Trump voters who supported him 12 months ago because of his anti-establishment rants? Or is the situation already past flipping the table? ..."
"... They're thoroughly brainwashed by right wing media, and tend to be low information voters who rail against fake news. They want to "give Trump a chance". They make decisions based on what they see in their personal lives. It will take them a couple years to notice things have gotten a lot worse, and by then who knows what they'll blame (besides blacks and women and poor people of course, those are a given). ..."
I blame the Clintonites for this. Nearly half of eligible voters didn't cast ballots in
the 2016 presidential election -- mid-term turnouts are even lower. If you count ineligible
people -- recent immigrants, people convicted of felonies or whose voting rights are
suspended, and children, the DNC Dems and the GOP have decided that they only need to appeal
to fewer than 20 percent of the population to stay in office. They are HAPPY to screw the
other 80 percent of the population.
This my friends, is despotism masquerading as democracy.
I agree with you about blame for the Clintonites. They hollowed out any meaningful core of
the Democratic party and went out of their way to out-plutocrat the plutocrats.
I also blame Senate Dems. I notice that for all their bluster the Senate Dems did not
actually leave the senate to criticize this. Only Sanders did.
But I have to disagree with your last point. There was no masquerade. This was knifework
in broad daylight. The Republicans were so desperate to get this over the line (and to quite
literally pay themselves off) that they no longer care to pretend. But for people like
McConnell and Ryan that does not matter. Their investors get paid.
This seems appropriate: 'what's passed is prolegomena of any future malevolence'
If reconciled and signed by Trump, this legislation will leave tens of millions of people
beaten, baffled and bereft. With this bill, they establish a permanent inheritor class whose
wealth will be so vast and untouchable that they can buy every election -- local, state and
federal -- from here on out. This is not simply a tax bill: It is the last stage of a
corporate coup that has been slow-walking its intentions for decades.
Whether you trace a grand narrative change in that mass psyche back to the worldwide
countercultural uprising of the `60s and `70s which as Derrida was to phrase it deconstructed
a mythology of a grounding reason transparently expressed in language, or to a relentless
undermining of governmental authority launched by Conservative think tanks, attitudes changed
drastically. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/97906/
not "for decades" "follow the $$$$" to Wall Street bank trillions allowed placed under
FDIC, by totally disempowered government, following 2007 $600 trillion largest theft-crime in
human history:
"JPM is the world's largest purveyor of derivatives. Its total contracts have a notional
value of $72 trillion -- and 99 percent of them are booked at its FDIC-insured bank.
Citigroup has nearly all of its $53 trillion in derivatives in its FDIC-insured bank; Goldman
Sachs has $44 trillion parked at an FDIC-backed institution. After Bank of America purchased
Merrill Lynch, BofA began transferring the securities firm's derivatives to the FDIC-insured
bank, which now holds $47 trillion in contracts. When Senators Sherrod Brown and Carl Levin,
among others, complained that regulators' acquiescence in these transfers contradicted
Congressional instructions in the 2010 Dodd-Frank reform law, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC
and the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency refused to answer
their objections. This matter involves "confidential supervisory" and "proprietary business
information," the three agencies responded in unison."
(Yves, others, having already shown how crime was perpetrated)
In terms of "blaming the Clintonites," it's useful to look at the Senate seats that the
Dems lost in 2016 because of the loser at the top of the ticket, the failure to campaign in
places like Wisconsin, the failure to do voter registration & GOTV, and the failure to
deal with voter "purges" and other suppression tactics.
The very good Russ Feingold ran in Wisconsin again the dreadful Ron Johnson -- and lost.
There's a vote the Dems could have used to fight this disaster.
Go on back through the 2016 list and see how Clinton and her enablers did this to what
used to be the Democratic party. I'm too depressed to do so right now.
I'm reading Brazile's book. It's humorous and interesting (much more interesting than I
expected from the excerpt in politico), but reinforces your point for sure.
The GOP and the Democrats are playing bad cop-good cop. Both serve the rich. They've used
culture war issues to split the nation, while the rich loot and pillage society.
The GOP is horrible, but the Establishment Democrats enabled their policies. Bill Clinton
did that to Reagan and Obama to Bush 2.
It's a disgrace. Both parties serve the same rich donors. It's a party, and you are not
invited. You will be forced to pay the bill though.
as he isn't on your 'bloggers' list, yves, you and your commentariat may or may not find
jack rasmus credible. but he weighed in at length on the house version of the gang rape of
the rabble classes on nov. 13. the senate seems to have mooted a few of the items, but what
will come out of reconciliation will be a set-up for destroying what's left of the social
safety net. how many ill die, how many will bleed, go hungry, lose their houses, their
minds
'The Trump-US House $4.6 TrillionTax Cut–Who Pays?', by Jack Rasmus, Nov. 13
That's in a way, good news for the progressives, in the November 2018 election, because
I think what we can try to ensure, is that this is the last time the Republican Party is
ever able to do this to the American people.
Really? And which "progressives" would those be? The ones who can't seem to keep their
John Thomases from jumping out of their knickers to say "Hello!" to every passing nubile
young fleshpot? Does he mean the Democrat party which today largely consists of Republicans
who can just mange not to drool on themselves while speaking? These are the people voters are
going to flock to the polls to elect? Funny, I thought 2006, or maybe 2008 was the "last
time" the Republican party would be able to do this to the American people.
And when those "progressives" fail to deliver just like the last time they had the
majority, we can start the whole charade all over again. Yippee.
I am sure that the DNC is partying over this. They can run all their blue dogs in 2018,
and when this all takes effect the people will vote for anyone with a D next to their
name.
this is from wsws.org this a.m., although before the final vote: 'The US Senate tax bill:
The financial oligarchy on the rampage'. holy hell.
""For Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted against Obamacare repeal, the price of
her vote was incorporating into the tax bill an unrelated provision opening the Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration. For Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve
Daines of Montana, the price was another $60 billion in tax breaks for "S-corporations," the
mid-sized, multi-million-dollar enterprises that were treated less advantageously in the
original bill than giant corporations. (the 'pass-throughs') The families of both senators
own such companies. Senator Susan Collins of Maine extracted a promise from Trump to support
increased financial subsidies for big insurance companies participating in Obamacare.
"The money-grabbing is so reckless that the tax bill does not provide even a fig leaf of
"fairness." In 2027, for example, according to figures provided by the Joint Committee on
Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office (both Republican-controlled), the bill raises
the taxes of people making $40,000 to $50,000 a year by $5.3 billion and cuts the taxes of
those making $1 million a year or more by $5.8 billion."
"Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer was not in the group [15 or so Ds' press
conference], but he has repeatedly indicated his support for the main goals of the tax bill,
which are to slash the corporate income tax rate, now 35 percent, and to allow giant
companies holding trillions in cash overseas to "repatriate" the funds and pay only a nominal
tax. He closed out the Senate debate with unctuous praise for Republicans, "many of whom I
admire," and an appeal for them to reconsider and reach a bipartisan deal with the
Democrats.
A late decision by Republicans could severely limit companies' ability to use tax
credits for research and low-income housing.
"For many companies, they will find that they will be unable to use the research credit
because of that minimum tax constraint," said Drew Lyon of PwC LLP.
In the previous version of the Senate bill, repealing the corporate AMT reduced revenue
by $40 billion over a decade. That suggests that retaining it would raise that much money.
Mr. Lyon said he was surprised that the estimate was that low and that the change would
affect many companies.
Who needs research. That's just fancy fake news for credentialed 20%ers. And who needs low
income housing when incomes of real Americans will be soaring. Just as form follows function,
policy follows process. Writing a multi-trillion dollar tax bill in real time has
consequences.
Now that it's passed, how long before Democrats and Republicans "come together in a spirit
of bipartisanship" to make the "hard decisions" to privatize Social Security and Medicare in
order to ensure "fiscal responsibility?" This country's cruelty and hatred of poor people is
shocking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJeFrqBJF6E
I wonder if more Medicaid is used to house the elderly, than pay for health care for the
poor. Most of these for profit long term care places will close. All the better, never put
mom & dad there. Very costly with little care.
" You really don't read this kind of legislation ," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.,
told home-state reporters, asked why the Senate was approving a bill some senators hadn't
read.
Democrats took to the Senate floor and social media to mock one page that included
changes scrawled in barely legible handwriting.
Nothing wrong with scribbling dramatic changes to the tax code on cocktail napkins, as ol'
Wilbur Mills (chair, Wayz 'n Means) used to do when he was cruising the boîtes
of Foggy Bottom with the Argentine Firecracker Fanne Fox. It's considered poor form, though,
if the lipstick smudges remain visible.
It may be poor form, but I was under the impression that a contract signed in soy sauce
using a swizzle stick still had the force of law behind it.
The other big problem with this is that "what happens inside the Beltway" don't stay inside
the Beltway. That other casino resort, Las Vegas at least pays lip service to decorum.
Regarding the sequence in this interview where Maté briefly challenges Henry on
"full employment" and then lets him dismiss it blithely and concludes "So, I don't think
anyone denies that the economy's operating at a pretty tight rate. We don't see inflation
rising yet but no one's making the case we need tax cuts in order to stimulate economic
growth except these Republican donors."
This is exactly what is wrong with mainstream economics and Democratic Party rhetoric.
While everyone knows tax cuts –especially these tax cuts–are a poor way to
stimulate growth, both this very site and the more intellectually coherent parts of the
populist alt-right are arguing quite the opposite: that we're not "tight" and
deindustrialization and US trade policy are to blame.
Rhetoric like this is one reason for the white-hot fury in the Rustbelt that got us Trump
and also why Sanders was far more appealing than Clinton to so many voters.
David Stockman is telling it like it is & that is why Fox/CNBC cut him off. Plain and
straight any Fox viewer can understand, When I listen to C-span many immigrant callers
(basing this on accents) they understand it is a scam. Greatest caller comment (sounded like
midwest), " this bill is like the story my grandpa told us about the cow & the sparrow,
Feed the cows enough oats & it passes through the alimentary canal, then some gets
sprayed out on the grass for the sparrows. They cut him off. HA!
Peak Plutocracy as "K Street" lobbyists rewrite the tax code for the benefit of large
corporations, Wall Street and a few wealthy families, and their legislators obfuscate the
contents of the legislation and remain deaf to the desires of the majority of the American
people. Seems to me there was a political event about 240 years ago against just this type of
behavior.
K street has been writing our laws for some time, not sure why these people even need
staff. We need to figure out a way to create a new economic system and not become a part of
this, like the so called unbaked that these companies are chasing.
It seems to me that this tax bill is just the kind of effort that millionaires and
billionaires would want from themselves. They need never think of anyone else because they
run the WHOLE show. No one should be surprised.
Ryan Grim over at The Intercept has done some of the math. The scary awful results are
nicely summed up in the title:
The GOP Plan Is the Biggest Tax Increase in American History, By Far The net upshot of
the accounting is that it is a 6 trillion dollar benefit for the very very rich at the
expense of everyone else.
The Dem messaging on this was terrible, whether due to incompetence or collusion. Two
charts which should have been plastered over the airwaves and online are about two thirds of
the way down this
Vox article based on Tax Policy Center data, labeled "How much the Republican tax bill
cuts taxes for Americans in each income group by 2019"
and " by 2025".
Better that the Dems had spent $30 million putting these charts in front of GOP
constituents' eyeballs, rather than flushing it down the drain in GA-06.
A staple of legislation involves regulatory discretion accorded "the Secretary" of the
lead department -- in this case Treasury and Mnuchin. Phrases such as this appear 71 times in
the pdf copy of the passed
bill I just opened:
"The Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out the purposes of this section " "the
Secretary may waive part or all of the tax imposed by subsection (a) "
This kind of language turned out to be an achilles heel in Obama's ACA, once "the
Secretary" became (the now-departed) Tom Price. As this GOP POS language is finalized,
discretionary authorities granted "the Secretary" will be very important. Mnuchin. Isn't that
comforting?
Heard Chris Mathews say the dems did not really fight this because it is a win-win for
them. Their donors receive huge sums in tax breaks to in turn funnel some crumbs back to the
Democratic Party owners and of course they get to run against it in '18. WBF we be f .
I read a book as a kid where all the adults died of some mysterious disease. I seriously
hope someone is using CRISPR to make a virus that kills every single millionaire. I hope it
is a miserable painful death too.
Blackstone, Carlyle, KKR, Apollo just got their own little loophole in the tax bill.
Cornyn amendment 1715 (to be included in manager's amendment). PTP [publicly traded
partnership] income, but not other financial services income, gets 23% passthrough
deduction.
As Steve Schwartzman would say, it's like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.
And as SCOTUS would say, non quid pro quo, non problemo.
Observing from abroad and therefore at a loss. Did this tax bill sink in with those
Trump voters who supported him 12 months ago because of his anti-establishment rants? Or is
the situation already past flipping the table?
They're thoroughly brainwashed by right wing media, and tend to be low information
voters who rail against fake news. They want to "give Trump a chance". They make decisions
based on what they see in their personal lives. It will take them a couple years to notice
things have gotten a lot worse, and by then who knows what they'll blame (besides blacks and
women and poor people of course, those are a given).
The Hill today reported that 6,000 lobbyists worked on this tax legislation. Funny, don't
recall voting for any of them. Also didn't realize there were anywhere near that many in the
Swamp. Wonder who even decides how to organize them on a project like this?
So in summary, the GOP tax bill was written in secret by donors' lobbyists, with last
minute handwritten amendments and "pork" revisions in exchange for individual senators'
votes, then passed in the middle of the night without time for a full reading or analysis by
senators.
Begs the question: "Taxation without representation"?
BTW, my friends, on page 97 of the Senate bill is a provision enacting "Personhood at
Conception," according certain tax "designated beneficiary" rights to the "unborn."
Not liking where we are and pulling up stakes whether from Ireland during the Hunger, or
from the German states after the 1848 revolution, or from Sweden when 'land reform' left you
with a sliver of land that wouldn't support a family of squirrels, or from the violence and
social chaos of southern Italy . and leaving for a 'better' country, has gotten us to this
point. We are, effectively, out of room on this Planet; there is no 'new world,' no 'empty'
continent.
We have run and retreated, beaten down by kings, barons, petty aristocrats, mean
landlords, occupying armies and, sometimes, simply lusting for a new landscape to scrape and
burn.
We have run and run, sometimes mounting a desultory rear guard action, but now, we have
no option but to turn and fight.
Well, we always have the option to surrender, be captured
and interned in the death camps of austerity, shredded safety nets, crapified jobs and debt
peonage. Our choice.
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his
neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear
that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."
As I recently reviewed a YouTube
eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out
at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become
neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted
being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led
plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international
law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned
past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged
to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the
neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for
war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence
in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies"
are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk
deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear
confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what
Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse
of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those
who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence
of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the
receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s
and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier
years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991.
President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam
Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is
that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those
old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe
they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention
fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to
cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in
Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey
wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done
in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped
by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join
the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the
neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio
in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How
War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth,
behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments,
like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin
over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's
throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for
the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among
Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013,
we called attention to an uncommonly candid
report
about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren
on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons
to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naďve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very
little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently
forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear
in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly,
that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory
by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for
a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement
– overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing
each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists
from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored
the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime
as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in
an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys
who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel
would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the
continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail,
let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the
Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the
nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while
some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable
influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated,
politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match
for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, divulged some
details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst
moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented)
with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially
in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without
the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest
of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president
in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely
to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he
endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no
doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
"... Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history. ..."
"... An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise. ..."
"... The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women). ..."
"... McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights. ..."
"... Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. ..."
"... Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up. ..."
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
The idea is to create the crime -- if they pressure Trump long enough, then
Trump may well make a mistake such as lying. Or they can dig out something really embarrassing. As the scope is deliberately very
open and the pretext is fake, this is essentially Lavrentiy Beria method: shown me the man and I will find a crime
Notable quotes:
"... They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there would
be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts. ..."
"... The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited
dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and developed
by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources. ..."
"... But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency about
his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research. ..."
"... But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted
for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate
their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't cooperate in contempt.
..."
"... No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr. Comey's
wiretaps. ..."
"... And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front of a
Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on the airport tarmac.
..."
"... If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And if
she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right. And if
she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer could be
questioned under similar terms. ..."
"... Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry
with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ? ..."
"... Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some
of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated
events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing, crippling,
and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play. Not, as in the case
of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and all to serve their own ends,
and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes. ..."
"... Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear
deal. ..."
"... In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly
denied that. ..."
"... I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed
dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders
deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating
the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files. ..."
"... I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal
state-to-state competition. ..."
"... Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional
and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above all
else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair shake instead
of the train ride he's on. ..."
"... With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian
market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies? ..."
"... According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. ..."
"... on't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence of
our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and that overt.
Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other countries' elections.
..."
"... The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason to
imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication. ..."
"... This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned when
they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not. ..."
"... This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact, law
enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After that farce,
Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax. ..."
"... Mueller will get some scalps. Guaranteed. ..."
It appears to me that the current dream/hope in the "resistance" is that Mueller will fish around enough to come up with "evidence"
that DJT and some of the people in his campaign and administration have been witting or unwitting cultivated assets of the Russian
state for some years. I do not really understand how that would be crime under US law unless espionage against US official secrets
were involved but the political effect would be ruinous. pl
Personally, I think this investigation is patterned after the independent prosecutor's investigation of Bill Clinton. Bill was
brought down by a dalliance with an intern. If they pressure Trump long enough then Trump may well make a mistake such as lying.
Or they can use their investigative powers to find something embarrassing (they get to question everyone they want under oath
and those questioned have to answer the questions). Otherwise the investigation can just drag on forever.
I wish more people understood that this is not about Democats vs Republicans.
They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there
would be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts.
I'm getting tired of seeing the same events trumpeted by the media and the independent prosecutor as if there was something
new. How many times can you disclose you were wiretapping one of the persons of interest or that you raided their home for documents?
I suppose that there could be a FARA violation if the person involved was involved in US foreign policy or if a false statement
were made in something official and sworn. pl
The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited
dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and
developed by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources.
But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency
about his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research.
The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential
campaign. Did Mr. Comey's FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court?
Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential
campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the "integrity"
of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted
for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation
to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't
cooperate in contempt.
Mr. Comey investigated both leading presidential campaigns in an election year, playing the role of supposedly impartial
legal authority. But his maneuvering to get Mr. Mueller appointed, and his leaks to the press, have shown that Mr. Comey is
as political and self-serving as anyone in Washington.
No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr.
Comey's wiretaps.
And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front
of a Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on
the airport tarmac.
If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And
if she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right.
And if she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer
could be questioned under similar terms.
I rather think no staffer would be operating under the delusion that they could survive thumbing their nose at Congress like
their boss doubtless would. But then again, maybe Seth Rich's still unexplained death may serve as an incentive to them to clam
up and weather whatever consequences might flow from that decision.
Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry
with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ?
Probably none of this will happen however, this being arguably what we can expect from Imperial Politics; no longer are we
to recognize this as the functioning of a Constitutional Republic, sad to say.
Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some
of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated
events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing,
crippling, and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play.
Not, as in the case of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and
all to serve their own ends, and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as
hell rhymes.
Oh, and in a not entirely dissimilar development, in Philadelphia, and in PA, it has emerged that legal immigrants, despite
being ineligible, have registered and voted. The hend wavers at the Philadelphia Inquirer are trying to minimize this, of course.
The thought arises, if it happened in PA, what about in CA? So maybe yet again, one of President Trump's charges is true? Cue
our own crew of handwavers here at SST. Over to you, ladies and gentlemen...
Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for
political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths,
accusations and justifications.
You'll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting "any type of data at all on millions
or hundreds of millions of Americans."
Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the
Iran nuclear deal.
In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly
denied that.
There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama.
The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
Journalists have been targeted, too. This internal email exposed by WikiLeaks should give everyone chills. It did me.
.....
I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics
have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel
agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in
on my conversations by activating the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files.
We survived the government's latest attempt to dismiss my lawsuit. There's another hearing Friday. To date, the Trump Department
of Justice -- like the Obama Department of Justice -- is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of
those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.
It is too early to say where this investigation is going, but there are indications that money laundering and shady real estate
transactions are scrutinized. How far up that goes, nobody knows. If close associates of Donald Trump get indicted, he will have
both legal and political problems.
Of course that is only one aspect. There may also be some serious conflict of interest problems. All of it is about to face
a burst of sunshine and that will illuminate every thing, good or bad. It appears that Donald Trump is seriously bothered by all
this activity and that in itself is interesting.
I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal
state-to-state competition.
That happens all the time and will continue to happen all the time. Seems that if anyone on
the Trump team can be found soliciting help from a foreign source, it would be a violation of campaign finance laws. If anyone
can be tied to the hacking and theft of data or the use of that hacked data (there was a lot of voter data taken in addition to
the DNC and Podesta data), the crime would be engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Then, of course, there are the targets of opportunity
associated with any cover up like witness intimidation, perjury, obstruction of justice, and the like.
Then there is the NYAG's investigation into Trump and his associates under NY RICO laws. That investigation is still very much
alive.
All this makes me wonder who is concentrating on the Russian IO itself. There's no crime here, besides the hacks and theft
of data, but that should be the crux of the investigation in my opinion. Perhaps Mueller is doing this. I would think he'd have
to understand exactly what was done, how it was coordinated and how it was financed before he could look for any crimes related
to this whole Russia thing.
TTG, I am not following this closely enough but for whatever reason Manafort popped up on my mind. Maybe due to earlier curiosity
concerning the Ukraine. Were would he fit in? And how?
Checking spelling of his name, I realized it made headlines again.
Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional
and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above
all else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair
shake instead of the train ride he's on.
With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian
market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies?
Exxon-Mobil certainly wanted to do that. And they don't strike me as unpatriotic dummies --
According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. The best response to an FBI agent
or any federal officer is "Have a good day Sir/Maam -- " or Buenos Dias, I prefer to have counsel with me when answering questions.
Don't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence
of our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and
that overt. Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other
countries' elections.
So whatever the Russians did or didn't do messing around with another country's elections, they're pretty far back in the queue.
I'm all for the greater readiness to investigate such matters that we see in the US; but why is the spotlight directed only into
this little corner?
Google "three felonies a day" or contemplate the words attributed to Richelieu - "Give me but six words written by the most honorable
of men, and I will find something therein to hang him with."
The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason
to imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication.
This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned
when they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not.
This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact,
law enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After
that farce, Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax.
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
According to recent
reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank
in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be
its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established,
naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.
If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends
on the whims and interests of particular donors.
And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in
the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical
salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which
already operates with an
annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.
A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, "
Maintaining
the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring
a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano
wrote " Five Steps
to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon"
for buying new weaponry. In 2016,
Heritage made the case for
several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an
encouraging start."
These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's
belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies
somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded
in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing
than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible
for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to
look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.
Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations
are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition
to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than
the latter. In May 2013, Heritage
sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and
National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered
"conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that
take
17 years to get off the ground.
Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to
keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have
the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily
the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."
In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced
only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct.
It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately
98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment
of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if
the price is right.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five
years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen
books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple
languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more
than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Notable quotes:
"... These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire. ..."
Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in
and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news')
media.
They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing
business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left)
are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being
"fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own
mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD'
(but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically
that blatant lie to the public).
Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003)
been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some
of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting'
(passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the
catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying
Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media.
That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those
media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now
censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies
including the
European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all,
will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?
Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at
the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of
the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.
One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover
headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia
Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their
menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump
Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as
"potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America"
(as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy
Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of
being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's
V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia
investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially,
treason.'"
These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them
up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick,
and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and
centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's
President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and
many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward
Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in
precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.
The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it
simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO
ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM
WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine)
was:
"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the
United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through
fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these
societies protect themselves?"
The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the
same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news,
disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect
themselves?"
The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing
-- and doing it even
worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end
of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other
countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)
Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the
American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages
and accounts" were "using Facebook to
incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" ,
and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the
multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be
viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making
firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to
NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other
fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC"
nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?
Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older
mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by
'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump,
alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .
And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main
'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper,
was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No
evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a
military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February
2011, even Politico was
reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W.
Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New
York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by
headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed
Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired
lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into
Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons
material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam
Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998;
but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made
available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply
lied about the entire matter .
Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and
repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public
don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real
'public servants' at all.
The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and
the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by
which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied
nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .
if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email
servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable
crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.
why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to
record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?
how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour
hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and
its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either
the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).
i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton
lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits
on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover
of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on
terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.
"... That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day. ..."
"... Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"... ..."
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the
current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated
the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas,
including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have
foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with
the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether
Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information
from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration
of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)
UPDATED below
---
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to
label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including
speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".
The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign
agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.
But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted
to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror
to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed
the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)
With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department
confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.
The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people
found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the
U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.
Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against
foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .
The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with
a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian
move.
"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're
doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned
news network.
Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally
published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center
RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of
programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against
"the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use.
... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national
debt.
... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information
wars" against the Syrian Government.
U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC),
and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements
that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.
RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter
that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing
foreign political interests.
...
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT
might be a way around that stipulation.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and
obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station
RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice
as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in
the day.
MOSCOW – Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign
agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.
The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV
register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents
in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television
BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government
to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.
...
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in
a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."
New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block
certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media
which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.
With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense.
See here for a corrected version:
Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson
added some verbose lamenting about one specific
country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.
---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am
As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is
now losing access to
the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely
to lose those too.
Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is
pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA
to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with
their XINHUA gigs.
Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM |
Permalink
Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not
several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the
players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and
we don't find that 'funny'.
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory
will rule the day..
Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab
League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video
of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here,
http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript
available at The Saker's blog.
Excerpt:
"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against
the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah,
peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against
horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military,
security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.
"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites
and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators,
supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria,
Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with
depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with
the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of
the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.
After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA
and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently
and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never
done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only
connected to the power outlet.
Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts,
but I do receive junk.
------
The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence,
is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000
(or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.
The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They
don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes.
What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'?
Writing letters to misrepresentatives?
It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be
the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".
Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for
centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph
only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.
Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American
people? That must be it.
Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think
about "the people".
Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians
and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now,
won't have to experience worse down the line.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake
For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously,
much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator
at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so.
Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.
Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial
White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes."
Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report,
https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/
Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than
attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise
of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion
from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here,
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html
Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US
empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment
do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of
deal with in the future.
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of
the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this
fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?
Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both
China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia
is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.
There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to
obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets
are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.
There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not
manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.
North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough
number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will
want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.
There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.
Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is
far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us
to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass,
but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal
ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him
from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.
Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- butRT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have
been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering
Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.
Sorry to not provide a link, but this
is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog"
organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt
if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored
RT colleagues.
Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies.
The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he
uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ
Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water,
submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump
that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona.
He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage
of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect
sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia
to be set up in where, Mexico?
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags,
fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of
morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness
and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute
media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes
forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting
to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue
from online commerce.
Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship
will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for
high speed internet.
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled
foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?
It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know
what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo,
with zero good outcomes.
Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system
(certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come
the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed
up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations
all around them.....sigh
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading
- talk about being handed an impossible brief......
Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time
he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No,
please, you go first.....".
While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists
will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras.
Back in 2009:
a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernández, overthrew the leftist President
Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.
Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum
to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando
Hernández then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from
the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.
Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object
to Juan Orlando Hernández stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened
just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.
To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while
some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer.
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons
and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what
it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.
Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination
of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay
online with the message
It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically
an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.
failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM |
42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places
( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member
on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour
gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.
I'm calling them the Worst Generation.
Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite..
it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it
came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
@all - I updated the post with RT's
loss of Congress Gallery
credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally
a congress commission now
wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT
from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats
next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment
to China? Interesting times indeed.
@ ToivoS | 34
why ban US propagated bullshit
Two reasons:
1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news
presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil,
that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.
2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more.
They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential
elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one
bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)
An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists.
The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is
very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.
Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure
US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more
than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in
and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news')
media.
They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing
business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left)
are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being
"fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own
mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD'
(but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically
that blatant lie to the public).
Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003)
been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some
of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting'
(passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the
catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying
Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media.
That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those
media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now
censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies
including the
European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all,
will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?
Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at
the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of
the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.
One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover
headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia
Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their
menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump
Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as
"potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America"
(as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy
Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of
being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's
V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia
investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially,
treason.'"
These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them
up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick,
and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and
centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's
President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and
many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward
Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in
precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.
The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it
simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO
ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM
WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine)
was:
"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the
United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through
fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these
societies protect themselves?"
The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the
same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news,
disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect
themselves?"
The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing
-- and doing it even
worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end
of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other
countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)
Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the
American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages
and accounts" were "using Facebook to
incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" ,
and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the
multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be
viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making
firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to
NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other
fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC"
nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?
Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older
mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by
'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump,
alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .
And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main
'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper,
was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No
evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a
military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February
2011, even Politico was
reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W.
Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New
York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by
headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed
Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired
lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into
Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons
material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam
Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998;
but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made
available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply
lied about the entire matter .
Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and
repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public
don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real
'public servants' at all.
The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and
the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by
which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied
nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .
if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email
servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable
crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.
why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to
record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?
how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour
hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and
its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either
the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).
i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton
lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits
on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover
of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on
terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.
"... Brad Hoff is an independent journalist and served as a Marine computer programmer for a headquarters unit at MCB Quantico.
He lived in Syria on and off from 2004-2009 as a civilian and currently teaches in Texas. ..."
by Brad Hoff Posted on
June 28, 2016
June 27, 2016 On a Monday morning in September of 2014 White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stepped out in front of cameras
to respond to questions of "intelligence failure" and
explained that both the administration and intelligence community were caught completely "surprised" over the shocking and "rapid
advance" of ISIS into Iraq over the course of that summer. However, two years prior in August 2012, an intelligence official with
the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stationed in Iraq had written an incredibly prescient classified
report predicting that out of the Syrian war could emerge "a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka
and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime "
It seems the analyst's chief concern, from his or her vantage point in Iraq, was that the international coalition fueling the
rebel insurgency across the border in Syria to effect regime change in Damascus could produce a monster capable to devouring large
territory. The intelligence report forecast that "ISI [Islamic State in Iraq] could also declare an Islamic State through its union
with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection
of its territory."
The memo specifically names Ramadi and Mosul as among the first Iraqi cities to potentially fall victim to what it calls "unifying
the jihad" under the banner of an Islamic State . The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) would capture Mosul in June
2014, and in a seemingly unprecedented blitz across Anbar, seize
Ramadi on Sunday, May 17, 2015. Ironically, the intelligence
report itself would hit
public view
in heavily redacted form on Monday, May 18, 2015 – just as the world was receiving news of the fall of Ramadi.
Soon after it was written, the 2012 IIR (Intelligence Information Report) landed on the desks of Congressional Intelligence
Committee members, but more importantly it would be used to argue policy at the White House – this according to the DoD's chief of
military intelligence at the time the memo was produced.
Director of the DIA at the time of the memo's drafting and former Sr. Intelligence Officer for JSOC, Michael Flynn, has repeatedly
affirmed the report's accuracy in public statements. But now for the first time a CIA perspective has been offered: former CIA Deputy
Director Michael Morell recently took to
Politico
to weigh in on controversy surrounding the now declassified 2012 memo which further warned that "the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood,
and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" and that "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition."
Ex-CIA #2 Morell contradicts Flynn's account of the intelligence report, writing that "it was simply wrong in its facts when it
indicated that the West was supporting extremists in Syria." Morell wants you to take his word for it: "The administration went to
great lengths to ensure that any aid provided by the United States to the opposition would not fall into the hands of extremists,
including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda." Morell adds his voice and insider credentials to a chorus of others assuring the public
that Trump is spouting debunked conspiracy theories in
claiming the
memo points to Obama and Hillary "support" for ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria.
While Trump mustered this document to back his usually bizarre and hyper-sensationalized rhetoric on President Obama's supposed
ideological sympathies with Islamic extremism, the
DIA document itself is quite substantive and worthy of public scrutiny and debate. Middle East analysts and academics have been
discussing the document for the past year since its court-ordered declassification through FOIA , though it has remained largely
outside of US media's notice until recently.
The
Washington Post's commentary, apparently uninformed of the history of reporting and analysis of the 2012 memo, refers
to it as "relatively unimportant" and as mere "routine headquarters analysis" in spite of the publicly available
confirmation
that the terms by which it was obtained through FOIA reflect that it was used to brief Congressional Intelligence Committee leaders.
But Morell has paid closer attention and knows the more significant context the Post left out, which is perhaps why he
takes the unusual step in writing an entire
editorial
to ensure the public stays away from the "conspiracy" reading of the text. He is well aware that within three months of the document's
declassification, Lieutenant General Flynn, speaking safely from retirement,
appeared on Al Jazeera and confirmed not only that the report had risen to his agency's highest office, but that he used
it to argue policy at the White House. According to Morell:
"The conspiracy theory got another boost when several news outlets reported on an interview that Mike Flynn, the director of the
DIA from 2012 to 2014, gave to Al Jazeera in August 2015. The media reported that Flynn said it was a 'willful decision' by
the administration to support extremists in Syria. Flynn's seniority and his interview as reported by the media gave the conspiracy
theory credibility."
Morell elsewhere references "national security-related blogs," which may be an indirect reference to my own August 2015
article
, which could have caught his eye after WikiLeaks posted it on its media
accounts , or after Glenn Greenwald cited it
in an
article defending Edward Snowden against intelligence officials' charge that his leaks had aided ISIS (Morell in particular had
been
very vocal on this charge after the Paris attacks).
Flynn appeared on Mehdi Hasan's Head to Head to tackle of topic of
"Who is to blame
for the rise of ISIL?" soon after the DIA memo was featured in an explosive article in
The Guardian (UK) which
went viral, and immediately on the heels of a lengthy
London Review of Books history of the
Syrian conflict authored by the world's foremost expert in modern Algeria and its Islamist movements, Hugh Roberts.
While Middle East pundit Juan Cole previously
downplayed the document's importance,
Roberts gave it lengthy commentary and affirmed that "The document not only anticipates the rise of IS but seems to suggest it would
be a desirable development from the point of view of the international 'coalition' seeking regime change in Damascus."
Roberts seemed to anticipate the two extreme poles around which the intelligence report would be interpreted: on one side are
the conspiracists who see evidence of the West's direct and ongoing support of ISIS to sow chaos in Syria, and on the other are those
who say it's a low-level IIR (Intelligence Information Report) which is of no importance.
This is precisely the false dichotomy which Morell and the Washington Post present – no doubt the inevitable result
of a somewhat complex intelligence report entering partisan presidential politics (and of course just old fashion CIA lying and obfuscation).
Hugh Roberts, however, accurately places the memo in its nuanced historical context:
"In the middle, showing more respect for the DIA, we could imagine something else: the possibility that, in 2012, American and
other Western intelligence services saw Isis much as they saw Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadi groups, as useful auxiliaries in the
anti-Assad drive, and could envisage its takeover of northeastern Syria as a helpful development with no worrying implications."
This is precisely both what Flynn confirms in his interview and what actually happened on the ground in Syria. The former CIA
Deputy Director is certainly correct when he says, "It is actually worth watching the interview," but the wealth of context given
in the five minute segment on the DIA memo should allow any observer to see that Morell is wrong in his interpretation: "When I watched
it, I did not see Flynn agree with the interviewer's assertion that the United States was deliberately supporting extremists."
Though a tough interview
segment
, Flynn did not object to Hasan, who held up a physical copy of the report as the two spoke, but instead confirmed Hasan's reading
of the intelligence document:
Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in
Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?
Flynn: I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being
presented was as good as it could be.
Flynn would later tell the
New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in particular was seen at the White House where it was "disregarded"
because it "didn't meet the narrative" on the war in Syria. He would further
confirm to investigative journalist
Seymour Hersh that DOD officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly warning the administration that jihadists were leading
the opposition in Syria – warnings which were met with "enormous pushback." Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that "If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive
level, they would go ballistic." Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence
schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria.
In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis , legendary DOD intelligence officer and former presidential briefer
Pat Lang explained to me that the DIA memo was used as a "warning shot across the [administration's] bow." Lang has elsewhere
stated that DIA Director Flynn had "tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide assistance to the Nusra
group." It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually emerge as distinct "ISIS" and "Nusra" (AQ in Syria) groups was at
that time a singular entity desiring a unified "Islamic State." The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as 'ISI' or
Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple Assad.
In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed
Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an opposition
corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military
prowess of fighters identifying themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq and
al-Sham .
Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly
confirmed that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led ISIS and Nusra fighters
in the attack (Ford himself was previously
filmed alongside the commander). This after the
New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact. Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military
operations, Omar al-Shishani, himself played a
leading role in the
US sponsored FSA operation. Al Jazeera and rebel video footage with translations authenticated by the top Syria
expert in the US, Joshua
Landis, can be viewed here .
The
Washington Post's interpretation of the DIA memo which includes the assertion that the "Obama administration, in fact,
drew sharp distinctions between the rebel groups" naively glosses over the messier realities on the ground in Syria. Abstractions
of the Situation Room are one thing, but as Brookings Institution scholar Charles Lister confirms in his latest book,
The Syrian Jihad , ISIS largely made its military debut in Syria in 2013 in the context of a US backed operation: "And
despite some contentious debate over whether the FSA or jihadists had been responsible for the victory, the then head of Aleppo's
opposition Military Council, Colonel 'Abd al-Jabbar al-Okaidi, confirmed that '[ISIS] took the lead in taking over the airport. This
group [is] a reality on the ground.'" (Charles Lister has elsewhere
revealed that US advisors
assisted the Al-Qaeda linked "Army of Conquest" in its 2015 takeover of Idlib from an "operations room" in Turkey.)
In spite of what Flynn calls a steady stream of accurate intelligence detailing the Al-Qaeda aligned nature of the opposition
and its aim of establishing a "Salafist principality" or "an Islamic State" (DIA memo), a CIA program to arm the Syrian opposition
moved forward anyway (the New York Times
reports that the CIA program began in early 2012).
Michael Morell himself recently
acknowledged to
NPR that "all of the weapons that were available led to the rise of ISIS." But contrary to the guiding assumption of the NPR segment
(that the intelligence community had failed to predict the rise of IS), the DIA memo and related testimony proves the IC knew exactly
what would emerge, and that the White House was given this knowledge far in advance, yet proceeded in weapons delivery anyway.
Vice President Joe Biden, in extraordinarily candid remarks
about internal White House deliberations given in front of a Harvard audience, explained in October 2014 that while the external
powers supporting the opposition (Biden specifically identified US allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others) were claiming to support
moderates, in
actuality "the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements coming from other parts of
the world." This was indeed, as Michael Flynn says, a "willful decision" as the intelligence "was very clear" and yet the White House
proceeded in partnering with its "allies" in covert support of these groups anyway.
No responsible commentary on the DIA memo suggests that this means administration advisors were sitting around openly talking
about how to empower ISIS, but this was certainly the end result of a CIA program born of calculation that a militarized Sunni movement
could prove useful in rolling back both the Assad government and what the DIA memo calls "Shia expansion." Even the US's closest
Middle East ally, Israel, routinely reflects in the policy statements of some current and
former officials a strategic vision that sees ISIS as the lesser evil when compared to Assad and Iran.
Michael Morell himself confirmed in a 2015 Jerusalem Postinterview
that Israel cooperates with Syrian Al-Qaeda (Nusra) along the Golan border and took the opportunity to warn Israel with the following
unambiguous words: "don't make deals with them." Most recently in Washington it's been former CIA Director David Petraeus strongly
advocating
for the direct arming and training of Al-Qaeda in Syria to effect the West's policies in the region.
No doubt Morell would likely emphasize that ISIS and other terror groups got their hands on US weapons primarily left behind in
Iraq. Administration officials have consistently downplayed what the Washington Post
reported in 2015 (based on Snowden documents) to be a secret weapons shipment program that is "one the agency's largest covert
operations, with a budget approaching $1 billion a year" (1/15 th of the CIA's total budget according to the leaked documents).
For Morell and others such a covert program signifies restraint and dovishness in a beltway environment where the prevailing culture
is oriented towards overt war as always being "on the table."
For ISIS and others these US and coalition supplied weapons became, in the words of former MI6 spy and British diplomat Alastair
Crooke, the basis of a "jihadi Wal-Mart" of sorts. The CIA
had never been in the dark as to this reality, but officials like Michael Morell can hide behind plausible deniability as Crooke
notes, "The West does not actually hand the weapons to al-Qaida – let alone to ISIS , but the system they've constructed leads precisely
to that end." Indeed, independent weapons research organizations like the UK-based
Conflict Armament
Research have gone so far as to trace the origins of Croatian antitank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to the joint
CIA/Saudi
covert program via identifiable serial numbers.
It must be remembered that low level and less well connected
American citizens have been arrested and put
into solitary confinement under US anti-terror laws for entering Syria to fight with FSA and al-Qaeda factions. Yet Michael Morell
and others were the very overseers of a covert program which resulted in the arming and equipping of these very groups.
Trump is surely right about one thing: this administration, including the CIA and Michael Morell himself, has a lot to answer
for concerning covert action in Syria.
Brad Hoff is an independent journalist and served as a Marine computer programmer for a headquarters unit at MCB Quantico.
He lived in Syria on and off from 2004-2009 as a civilian and currently teaches in Texas.
Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance
hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning
talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were
sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the
2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed
to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."
Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor
did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.
There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations
that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked
Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:
I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were
taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of
the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media
efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is
trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.
In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small
army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted
on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a
case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the
leaders of this campaign.
The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over
again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called
Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence
of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that
cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.
So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such
judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the
entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately
trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?
Here's Brennan again on Sunday:
I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility
for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's
still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian
threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings
of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts
admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given
that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid
lead let alone any compelling evidence.
We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations
that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage
or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people
are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.
These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent
Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves
acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda
to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.
Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're
supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing
that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer
Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:
Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid
the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no
WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.
In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans.
After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was
clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .
Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference"
in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices
of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)
So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing
on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?
He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied
on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?
And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and
rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping
program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying
when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in
Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for
execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director
nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone
attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing
apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA
These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands
of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?
Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.
As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust
what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a
compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are
shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.
Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than
that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington
establishment will never allow to happen.
What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or
less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could
have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing
away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing
his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist
and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief
Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.
He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent
his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.
Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.
Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee
brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still
at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the
FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.
We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors'
claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It
has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including
Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.
What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet
sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage
and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about
money and conflicts of interest.
We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back
by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into
English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line
is suddenly back on the table.
Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign
state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that
is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which
in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.
Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and
sent to prison for life.
It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.
And since when are the three not related?
It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state
sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.
Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing
but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.
Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan
is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective.
One ugly customer!
Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup
of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social
websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing
more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio,
848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow
the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU
parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.
Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were
killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which
the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.
That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and
a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth,
they are still waiting for the jobs.
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player
named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that
every sports tabloid wants to know.
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next
US president wisely.
There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the
next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and
after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers,
but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..
Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?
versus
A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?
I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity
in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime
to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.
We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate
who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women
was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.
And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories
to convince voters to vote against Trump.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very
hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.
But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote
their website.
As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can
take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press
Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a
few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And
most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple
ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied
by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were
connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever
logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries),
logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled
for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".
Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can
be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what
is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not
directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely
as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.
Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be
necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with
the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar
random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make
sense to speculate about the reasons.
We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to
Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia
any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but
in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but
in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).
What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social
media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order
to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign
had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What
would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians
who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"?
After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about
this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which
ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion
narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would
that make it nefarious?
I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense.
If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not
be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret
services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory
that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly
not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked
how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have
been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over
to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails
to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social
media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social
media election campaign hardly makes sense.
The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior
to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics.
Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this
might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly
superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns
spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them
according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary
abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate
basic principles of common sense.
Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly,
many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"
I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing
the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.
The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if
it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life
and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the
US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted
as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan
are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a
legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody
like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is
still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole
thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or
criminal themselves.
The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read
these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their
interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.
The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:
"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives
of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99
"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted
a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!"
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml
The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another
case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the
target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood
Ukrainians."
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/
"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of
vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the
place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this
cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
"... In a CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it as a way to "undermine" the media establishment. ..."
"... The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles "fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for "anyone in the world" to have a platform. ..."
"... Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely backfired. ..."
"... This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most inaccurate reporting. ..."
"... The Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication. ..."
"... The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most consistently dishonest entity of all. ..."
"... Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term altogether? ..."
CNN is now pushing an effort to "ban the term fake news" after the slogan became synonymous
with CNN itself thanks to President Donald Trump.
In a
CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with
the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become
meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it
as a way to "undermine" the media establishment.
The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles
"fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for
"anyone in the world" to have a platform.
Remember when the mainstream media & the Hillary campaign invented the term "fake news"
in an effort to discredit alternative & right of center media outlets?
Complaining that "less powerful agents can harm large institutions or established
individuals," Derakhshan and Wardle warn that trust in institutions is declining and that only
through intervention at the level of "public education" (ie indoctrination) can this be
reversed.
Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is
because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of
center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely
backfired.
This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that
a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most
inaccurate reporting.
We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the
most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President
(me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!
"Fake news" was one of many excuses trotted out after November last year to push the
narrative that President Trump's election was somehow illegitimate.
In reality, a major Stanford University study found
that "even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of
Americans," and that the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited
Hillary Clinton.
Fake news had virtually no impact on the election, but the establishment media weaponized
the term as part of an agenda to silence and censor voices of dissent, including media
platforms, that had opposed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
In addition, mainstream media news coverage in the weeks leading up to the election was 91%
negative towards Trump, according to a
study by the Media Research Center.
The
Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the
Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication.
The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the
media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most
consistently dishonest entity of all.
Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term
altogether?
"... I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing 'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already turning antisemitic, and may become much more so. ..."
"The biggest element of US-Israeli military-technical cooperation is military aid. Israel is
the main recipient of US military aid in the form of grants and direct deliveries of equipment
on advantageous terms. Since 1976, Israel has been the biggest recipient of annual US aid, and
since 1987 of US military aid. In addition, by some estimates Israel receives $1 billion a year
in the form of charity contributions, and a similar sum through short- and long-term funds. US
provide aid to Israel in various forms: Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Excess
Defense Articles, and also funds to support research and development. Moreover, the Foreign
Military Financing program implemented by the US Department of State has become, over the
years, the largest of all such programs implemented by the US. One should note that, for
example, out of $5.7 billion budgeted for this program in 2014, $3.1 went to Israel, In other
words, Israel obtains more military assistance through this program than the rest of the world
combined. This sum does not include the financing for Israel's ABM programs, which are
estimated at another $500 million. Unlike other programs, FMF allows Israel to spend up to 25%
of US-provided funding on own military programs. All other countries receiving military aid
must spend it only on US weapons and equipment." SF
-----------
IMO it is debatable as to which side is the donkey in the US/Israeli military relationship.
In my experience as the head DoD liaison to IDF general staff intelligence (7 years worth),
"what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well." I was an SES then with the
spigot to intelligence largesse in my hand and I found them to be completely bloody minded
about sharing information with the US. To get anything from them was like pulling molars
without anesthetic.
I don't doubt that US government gifts to Israel benefit American defense industry, but
these gifts come right out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and what do we get for it? Is
it salved conscience for FDR's unwillingness to open the floodgates to European Jewry during
WW2? Perhaps that is so or is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC
works upon Congress?
Israeli forces are in no way at the disposition of the US. They are not assets of American
policy. Israel sees itself as an self-defining island in the world and the only real home for
Jews. As such it thinks it cannot afford to be sentimental about any predominately gentile
state, in other words, all others.
And then, there is the repeated phenomenon of Israel either skirting the provisions of
proprietary agreements about equipment sales or shared R&D or simply outright violations of
these agreements in sales to third parties.
No, there is no doubt, we are the ass. Hee Haw! pl
Go to Breitbart or other Zionist supporting websites and ask the same question. Only frame it
differently i.e. 'When will Israel start fighting it's own wars?'
Once Israel has sucked America dry . . got them in a strangle hold in National debt, bought
out all Corporations that are profitable and useful for their cause . . and all the time
Americans believe Israel is doing them a favour in the Middle East.
Remember that's what the Russians believed, the British, the German, the French, the Arabs
& the Turks believed. Now its China's turn . . now their done with the U.S. . . how long
or how deep in debt must you go before you wake up America and how many Goyim children must
die for these Talmudists. Work it out . .
thanks pat.. good quick overview from you who have worked on the inside enough to get a
better glimpse of the dynamic. when will this insane relationship stop?
FDR's unwillingness? According to Alfred M. Lilienthal ("The Zionist Connection. What Price
Peace?", pp. 35 f.), it was the Jewish lobby that prevented a legislation enabling the
immigration of the doomed.
The Zionist Connection is a wonderful eye opening book that completely turned my thinking
around when I first read it 39 years ago. Highly recommended.
Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism.
Predatory rent seeking minorities, protected by the liberal mind virus, leveraging the power
structure for their own gain.
And its not limited to just Jews. Even whites who originated further away from the largely
northern European founding stock of the US play their little games. Few know concentrations
of Poles in key swing states like Ohio have extracted significant concessions from various
presidential campaigns on the matter of Eastern European foreign policy. This was why when
unapologetic WASPs ruled the United States, they were highly selective of who could come in,
and ruthlessly stamped out any value systems and cultural traits distinct from new world
Anglo norms. America was never a 'melting pot' as a London based Jew tried to claim in the
early 20th century in his hack play. It was an Anglo run forge which inducted selected
adjacent groups who could be assimilated into to the whig Anglo tradition.
"Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism."
I
believe diversity and multicultuarlism may be a superior counterbalance to your 'rent seeking
minorities', Perhaps this nation needs some new blood to help 'drain the swamp'.
Not to mention the blatant theft of US nuclear materials in support of their nuclear weapons
program.
Not to mention they are always on the FBI's list of the countries most engaged in
espionage against the US. The FBI was up in arms over the fact that Israeli firms were operating the US
communications eavesdropping equipment until they got caught selling intercept information to
California drug dealers.
Israel has learned that the best way to spy on other countries is to be the country
selling those countries all the surveillance equipment.
Not to mention Israel's hacking ability. The latest Russiagate nonsense involved the
Kaspersky Labs, an infosec company, being hacked by Israel who then claimed Kaspersky was
connected to Russian intelligence. This resulted in the US banning Kaspersky products inside
the US government and severely hurt Kaspersky's business model.
Not to mention their agents knew all about 9/11 prior to the attack and waited until a
couple weeks before to mention it to US intelligence, as a means of CYA. Their agents
actually filmed the attack from New Jersey while high-fiving themselves.
Not to mention they were involved in "false flag" terrorist attacks against Western
targets until they got caught at it.
Not to mention the USS Liberty, a flagrant attack on a US intelligence ship with the
expressed purpose of killing every US sailor on board.
The list of Israeli aggression against the US is long and sickening. It should be
considered treason to support that country in any way.
So is our U.S. becoming a more police state atmosphere like Israel? The same Israel where
censorship and the state message rule the day, seems is being passed onto our U.S.. U.S.
taxpayer funded startup GOOGLE is now on-board to become America's censor. Was British Author
George Orwell looking into a crystal ball when he created the writing "1984"? Hmmm..
Why not let the American people do their own censoring, where if they don't like the
internet message (RT,Sputnik, Russian news), they can change the subject or move on to
something they are more interested in.
I'd say the parasitical more than the symbiosis is the meme.
America's police being trained in Israeli tactics of force upon the unarmed, the Israeli
tactics to dehumanize is now percolating within U.S. law enforcement tactics and employment
methods, is also spreading to thought and message control.
I believe Google has been doing this for quite some time. The information is there but you
must make an effort to find it, and assess its factualness. The only thing Schmidt is doing
is prioritizing Western propaganda over Russian propaganda.
This was one of the scariest things I noticed traveling in Israel/Palestine around 2006-2008.
Just about every draconian security measure was used as part of daily life. They've since
become common place in the US now all as a result of the same need to "fight terrorism."
That US police forces send delegations to Israel to learn about policing tactics are also
worrisome.
Tail truly wags the dog here. Maybe not overall but certainly as far as foreign
policy/middle east/constant need for an enemy are concerned.
Focuses on the end times, Israel and now the Saudis, not necessarily in any order of
importance. And damn India - they've cancelled a $500 million missile deal with Israel .
Smart policy move from India? Leave Israel wanting to get back into India's good graces with
some extra technology transfers. My impression is that India plays Israel well on arms tech.
Get as much as they can with as little in return as possible. Don't the US sometimes put
their foot down and blocks an arms deal.
"India has become one of Israel's largest buyers of military hardware, with annual defense
deals worth over $1b.
"Usually, all the [defense] deals between Israel and India included some technology
transfer, which India could not get anywhere else in Europe or America," said Shapir. "As
long as we can supply better technology on better terms, India will welcome it." He added
that relations could deteriorate again, due to India's strong ties to Iran and much of the
Arab world."
A long time ago I worked at Collins in Cedar Rapids in the GPS group. My boss at the time was
head of R&D. He told me that when the Israelis came to town they were almost impossible
to work with since they were constantly trying to steal intellectual property and classified
material. Other foreign nationals would occasionally try something but they never tried to
get away anything near what the Israelis did. As I'm sure that many of your readers would be
aware of GPS is crucial to communication security.
Never forget that a Palestinian and an Israeli put their pants on the same way that you do.
That's the way I try to look at the inhabitants of this world. In my heart I'm hoping that
most Israelis would agree
They will suck the last drop of blood from USA, then they will move out to better heavens....
They have already started moving lots and lots of funds and assets out of the USA...., for in
their schemes, the US is nearing a breaking point to the worst...
The two major problems your country faces as an independent country are Saudi money, and Gods
chosen people (according to the bible).
Saudi money is corruption legalised.
Israel - many people of influence in the US seem to give their loyalty to Israel rather than
the US, for I guess religious reasons.
Be interesting to see how much Saudi "sponsorship" money flows into the US after the MBS
corruption enquiries. Israel is a harder nut to crack. A bit of chemo in the US required?
When I claimed that Nato was little more than the Rothschild Army I was lambasted here. If
the US military, which has control of Nato, is the ass of the Donkey, then what does that
make Nato? Somehow every Nato secretary ends up being a Zionist/Neocon too, so the control is
clearly complete.
In 1917, the Balfour declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who simultaneously was
instigating the Russian Revolution and the murder of his sworn enemy, the czar.
The point here is that Israel, more than anything else, is a creation of the House of
Rothschild and during the decades of its creation there were numerous Jews who were rabidly
opposed to the false claims of biblical justification. This is one reason why there are
dozens of fake claims in the Zionist dominated newspapers of "6,000,000 dead Jews" starting
in the pogroms of the late 1890's until they finally found a holocaust that they could make
stick to use to justify land theft and extortion.
And extortion is the point here. Not only the US is being extorted for a few billion every
year, other countries are forced to make massive extortion payoff's too. Switzerland and
Sweden were forced to pay billions due to their having traded with Germany during the war and
having accepted "nazi gold". Merkel famously gifted diesel-electric submarines to Israel, on
top of the tribute that Germany still pays yearly.
There are dozens of ways that Israel, and jews in general, extort money from gentiles in
forms of special jew taxes. One of these is the OU kosher certification which many
manufacturers are forced to provide.
The Lavi fighter saga epitomizes the perverse nature of US-Israeli relations. The US offered
over a billion dollars for its R&D, 250 million to be spent in Israel. The primary
beneficiary was IAI a company which illegally tried to sell its Kfir jet to Peru in direct
competition with Northrup, illegal because the Kfir's GE J-79 engines came free of charge and
with an End User Certificate preventing their re-export. Informed of this Congress responded
by increasing the Israeli largess to 450 million.
In the end Israel decided not to build the
plane but sold the plans to the Chinese whose J-10 aircraft, their first home-grown state of
the art fighter, while not a part for part copy does bear a striking resemblance to the Lavi.
Both the British and American aviation press claim the J-10 could not have been built as
quickly and cheaply as it was without Israeli help. With friends like these .....
>is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress?
Mostly it is about the bribery. To some degree it is about the blackmail. If Hillary gets
convicted for uranium - or pizza trafficking - perhaps the extent of corruption will become
widely known, and perhaps the populace will be moved to wrath.
The notes from the recent speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist
Conference which were published under the title 'The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organisation'
are I think very interesting – thanks to 'b' for the link.
I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued
enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly
skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This
may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing
'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have
drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already
turning antisemitic, and may become much more so.
It was also interesting that Ms Bryen relied extensively on the views of our former Chief
Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, given that he has little understanding of the attitudes of people
in this country outside the narrow circles in which it appears he moves.
In September 2016, he gave a speech to the European Parliament entitled 'The Mutating
Virus: Understanding Antisemitism', in which it was claimed that: 'Antisemitism is not about
Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their
own failures and have instead to blame someone else.'
Seems to me the Jewish predicament is that they number 15 million in a world with 1.3 and 1.4
billion Indians and Chinese respectively. Am guessing this is experienced as a threat to
their post-ww2 intellectual, cultural, and economic supremacy.
All living organisms at all levels of organization have survival strategies for overcoming
disadvantage. See Darwin and/or Adler and/or Clausewitz and/or Kautilya for different but
similar -- variations on a theme -- descriptions of how that goes.
as usual, your analysis is provocative and I mostly agree, but you say
"to dismiss the convictions of people who think that Jews have too much influence as
scapegoating is, again, simply silly. The wrong Jews do."
In my view, Jews do have too much influence over the government of the USA, but it is NOT
just a matter of "the wrong jews" as you state.
Consider the Supreme Court, where 3 of 9 justices are jews, also noteworthy that 5 are
catholic. Gorsuch is the 9th, and he was raised catholic but became an episcopalian. Until
Gorsuch was appointed, there were no protestants on the Court, none, zero.
And of course there are no atheists, or muslims or buddhists or hindus.
I do not fault the jewish members of the Court, rather I ask for analysis of how this small
minority of perhaps 2% came to occupy one third of the seats of the Court.
And catholics with 22% of the population, hold 5 of 9 seats on the Court.
Perhaps the answer is there are no intelligent articulate protestants in the USA?? I don't
think that is the answer.
Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in "the Ritz" these days. Want to sue Saudi
Arabia for money because of 9/11? No problem, judge. Here are the names, here are the
numbers, and here are the facts.
Disagree regarding multipolar order. The super structures for Globalism are untouched in
all this theatrical displays. All parties seem to participate actively in key Globalist
institutions.
Petrodollar is not and was never a component of NWO. It was an instrument of American
supremacy. There are no planned superpowers in the NWO vision. Only Super-Institutions
.
Legendary
CIA spy and convicted Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt.
(Legs for educational purposes only)
New
York Times
