May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous
Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump by neocons and DemoRats
(also sometimes called Purple revolution; should probably be called American Maydan: two teams of oligarchs struggle for power using
dirty methods against their opponents; one team is represented by neocons and Clinton neoliberals and it was in power since Ronald
Reagan; the composition of the other team in unclear, but it is clear that Pentagon plays important role in supporting Trump after
election in the face of neocon/neolib/intelligence agencies coup d'état )
Two third of the US population now is brainwashed into adamantly anti-Russian mindset, increasing the risk of the major war;
but too big money are involved to allow Trump détente with Russia
In his opening speech
against Catiline, Cicero deplores the viciousness and
corruption of his age. Cicero is frustrated that, despite all of the evidence that has been compiled against Catiline, who has
been conspiring to overthrow the Roman government and assassinate Cicero himself, and in spite of the fact that the senate has
given senatus consultum
ultimum, Catiline has not yet been executed.
Cicero goes on to describe various times throughout Roman history where
consuls have killed conspirators with even less evidence, sometimes – in the case of former consul
Lucius Opimius' slaughter of
Gaius Gracchus (one of the
Gracchi brothers) – based only on quasdam seditionum
suspiciones, "certain suspicions of insurrection" (Section 2, Line 3).
The reality of Russiagate is that the corrupt neoliberal system and its institutions were laid bare in an unprecedented way. The Democratic Party is
now views as yet another corrupt oligarchic party, it was since Clinton sold it to Wall street. The Republican Party is
no better. And the neoliberal MSM has exposed itself as attack dogs of intelligence agencies like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and cruel neoliberal system which was put in place instead of the New Deal capitalism since 1980th. The reality of the
neoliberal system now is exposed in magnifying Russiagate lens under which FBI, CIA, Justice Department, Pentagon, MSM does
not look too good, to say the least. That's probably the only good thing about it
The events after Trump elections really smells with coup d'état. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert coup
to preserve neocon foreign policy.
Let’s remember that in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, those who voted for Trump wanted not
so much for Trump as against the neoliberal establishment. . They voted for him because they wanted a wrecking ball for this corrupt
and cruel system, a human hand grenade, a big “F*CK YOU” to the system. Maybe that’s what we got. In this sense Russiagate only
helped because the political establishment was rendered completely dysfunctional during the Russiagate.
I think before Russiagate there was a tremendous gap between perception of the USA political landscape by the majority of the population
(constitutional republic, elected representatives) and the reality (empire, "one dollar one vote", "deep state" with the core of all
powerful and out of control intelligence agencies, etc). Much like in Matrix. This gap is now shrinking, at least for those who
Now most people clearly realize that it was FBI (FBI
Mayberry Machiavellians) and CIA
(Brennan) which were the kingmakers in the
last Presidential election. They are directly responsible for the election of Trump pushing Sanders under the bus by exonerating Hillary.
and they launched a color revolution against him in November 2016 to correct this blowback of their meddling in the USA election
Despite his inspiring election rhetoric's (against neoliberal globalization, foreign wars, unchecked immigration, for creation of
jobs that pay decent wages and reverse of offshoring of the US manufacturing) Trump proved to be another stage of the same process
of degradation that was in full speed under Obama. With his "bait and switch" maneuver (mainly to save his own scalp, he is not
willing to die for his principles like a noble man). He was emasculated just after three months of his presidency. After May
2017 Trump became just a continuation of Obama "change we can believe in" scam.
In all empires the real political power were eventually transferred to generals. In case of the Trump administration this is
especially visible as retired military brass is well represented in his administration. While it is interesting and
sometimes amusing to observe the level of animosity between Pentagon and CIA (they sometimes fight each other in Syria
via proxies), that does not change the direction in which the USA administrations evolve.
During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against
the Islamic State and reverse excesses of neoliberal globalization which destroyed parts of the USA manufacturing and impoverished
common people using Russian market as a leverage. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and kicking can down the road as for
foreign policy establishment, the media, the CIA and FBI were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice.
It was Trump and his vision of proper for the USA policies that were elected. But that's completely unacceptable to globalist
even of the level of lip service. That's why neoliberal establishment decided to reverse the results of the elections launching a
color revolution against him.
In other words Russiagate is not so much about Russia as about the coming collapse of the US-led global neoliberal empire and the gradual
loss of legitimacy of the US neoliberal elite, which currently is in power. The term also serves as the name of color
revolution launched against President Trump. How quickly the US global neoliberal empire disintegrate under the blows of nationalism
and resentment for the sliding standard of living of common people is unclear. One unknown factor in the current situation is
when the period of "cheap oil" might end. Because the US economics experience "secular
stagnation" if the price of oil is above approximately $60 dollars per barrel, and falls into full blown recession with the
price above $100 dollars per barrel. Which might be on the horizon
If price of oil will raise to above $100 level in a decade or less as some predict, then the USA will not be able to sustain its empire beyond this point and needs
to retreat. Preferably before it's too late. Because the efforts to sustain the empire in the situation with the price of oil
over $100 per barrel might led to the collapse of the US economy as it will deprived of the necessary for sustainable development
funds. Empires tend of overextend themselves and that lead to their demise. This is essentially the situation which led to
collapse of the USSR and before that of British empire. It might take the form of yet another global financial crisis, the net result of
which would be the elimination of dollar as the primary global currency. IMHO the USA economy is unable to get out of stagnation
when the price of a barrel of oil is above $60-$70. And with prices above $100 per barrel the return to the "Great Recession" is the
most natural outcome. But it also can take the form of WWIII which might threaten the civilization of this planet.
I initially thought that Trump election was due to this efforts of a more forward looking part of the US elite and signified the start of
such a retreat. Logically the USA would be able to cut military budget to manageable 200-300 billion and redirect the rest on
rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing as well as improving life of the lower middle class, which is the backbone of the
society and standard of living of which continues to slide. I was wrong. Looks like militarism and neoliberal global expansion are
here to stay under Trump. One reason for this is that there is an influential "servants of the empire" caste of the US society,
which is materially interested in sustaining and expansion of the empire, and which is able to block any unacceptable for
Now we know that "Neoliberalism uber alles" faction of the US elite prevailed and quickly emasculated Trump by
fraudulently on trump up changes (see
Steele dossier) appointing the
The also launched unprecedented Neo-McCarthyism campaign
replacing "Soviets" with "Russians" and successfully reviving slogan "Russians under
each bed" in cyberspace. Cyberspace proved to be a perfect environment for
flag operations creating opportunity to frame chosen adversary in all mortal sins. DNC hacking charges are a prominent
example of this category (despite solid evidence that it was a leak, not a hack the USA MSM continue propaganda complain trying to
frame Russia to this day). If the calculation for the current anti-Russian hysteria is crushing Russia economically and isolating it
politically with the ultimate goal of getting Russian oil for cheap, that does not look too realistic strategy. But this
campaign does work in creating hostile attitude to Russia for majority of Americans.
In any case it is important to understand that it is the alliance of neocons and neoliberals (with the neocons and globalists in
intelligence agencies in key roles) which managed to unleash a color
revolution against Trump with the clear goal to depose him by any means as in " the end justifies the means."
Which means that retreat to "localized" version of Neoliberalism, let's call it "Neoliberalism with human face" and restoration
of some elements of the New Deal is indefinitely postponed. Trump now is emasculated. The process of erosion of the unity of the nation due to economic
difficulties, sliding standard of living, lack of good jobs as well as
job prospects for both young and older Americans, and side effects of identity politics, which is needed to keep working class in check (as well as the related process
of delegitimization of the neoliberal elite) will continue unabated.
That's crazy and tragic situation: "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” Unless something more comes of this, the
neocons, globalists and
their media cohorts will repeat Iraq WMD fiasco. As in "history repeats itself: first as tragedy, second as farce".
Steele dossier gambit suggests that we live in a neoliberal empire run by the intelligence services (the core of the "deep state"), not a republic.
And the democracy on federal level is severely curtained by the fact of existence of so powerful agencies. It is true that there are
some counterattacks of democratic forces under the banner of accountability, but generally the horse already left the barn. Actually,
for CIA it took less then twenty years when tail started wagging the dog, if we assume that they played the key role in JFK assassination.
And Herbert Hoover was above any serving President; none was able to get rid of him until his death.
So we have what we have:
Electorate does not matter much and is always presented with two “equally bad” choices, forcing
typical for neoliberal empires ceremonial voting
for “lesse evil”.
POTUS now became mostly a ceremonial figure which can be emasculated, impeached, or killed if the "deep state" decided that
he is not acceptable (actually Obama one time mentioned that he is not eager to repeat the destiny of JFK; so he felt the danger). It took just three months
for the deep state to emasculate Trump. The working hypothesis now is that FBI along with rogue elements in the Department of
Justice (Rosenstein, Ohr) and other intelligences
agencies (Brennan) tried to stage a soft coup against Trump after the elections along the lines:
After surprise victory of Trump in Republican primaries, they launched a color revolution against him. which included
anti-Russian hysteria in neoliberal MSM based on falsifications of
Steele dossier, spying on him to collect dirt
and find out which appointees Trump consider for key positions (On Nov 17, 2018 Trump became aware of that and decided to move
his headquarters from Trump tower to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey at least partially avoid this) . As well as
several false flag operations I view Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump Jr. at Trump Power (organized by FBI contractor
Fusion GPS) as an early false
flag operation, see below. The FBI and CIA contractor
"analysis" of DNC "intrusion" (which was a leak, not an intrusion) also has all signs of a sophisticated false flag operation. This putsch against the will of American people was
the joint operation
of at least three intelligence agencies: FBI, CIA and MI6. Along with as rogue elements in the Department of Justice and the State
Department. See Colonel Patrick Lang discussion
The recent revelations about Steele's dossier saga implicated intelligence
agencies in a "soft coup" against the remnants of the republic and democracy. To hide this development from the public
Strzokgate revelations the deep
state required a good smoke screen to be launched. "Fire and fury" fitted the bill. Was it part of the plan, or happened accidentally
(it was actually rushed to print) does not matter. The role of the book is to distract the public from the revelations about Steele Dossier, abuse
of FISA court and intelligence agencies efforts to depose Trump. Since Jan 3, 2018 we observe efforts to replace discussion of
Steele dossier and FISA count abuses with the discussion of salacious gossip about Trump administration provided by Wolff.
Not that Trump is a saint, but he, at least, was duly elected by electorate. Even his meek and by-and-large derailed efforts
to confront the neoliberalism and unhinged neoliberal globalization were positive for the USA population developments.
It was not overly idealistic to hope that Trump would be able to
bring a world in which defense forces
(and defensive alliances like NATO) are used for the proper purpose of defense, cut crazy level of military spending at least by
half, and end expensive and destructive wars for
expanding neoliberal empire dreamed up by the US neoconservatives. That's what Trump 2016 was about and why he won.
So opposition to them and the successful attempt of the powerful alliance of neocons and neolibs to derail Trump agenda and
enforce the status quo are reactionary and bad for the country.
The release of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) memo did corroborate what we already knew. Nunes did
amazing job, which for long was not done. He really served as a watch dog for FBI. Most Congress "oversight" committees are
"overlook" committees. This was an exception.
The biggest Nunes
memo revelation has little to do with its content. Essentially Nunes memo implies that FBI considered both Sanders and Trump movements
as insurgency and launched counterinsurgency operation against them. Trying to undermine them by dirty and potentially illegal
methods including new generation of dirty methods which can be called "false flag operations in cyberspace". In other words
FBI was playing the role of "kingmaker" in 2016 Presidential elections. Colliding with CIA and MI5
with the implicit goal of supporting "an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda" (read "neocon foreign policy"):
“There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in
other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy
agenda for a very long time. “
Implication is that MI5, CIA and FBI were involved in the soft coup to depose of emasculate Trump. And it works. But now
some dirty method are revealed. Which among other thing suggests that due NSA activities CIA and FBI have "implicit" dossiers
on members of Congress, Pentagon and Justice Department. Available with a few clicks of the button. This is "J.
Edgar Hoover on steroids." Dirt that allows to control members of Congress. Is not this the situation in which tail
wags the dog? In this light the fact that members of congress voted for renewal of surveillance act when details on Nunes memo
were already known is a very telling sign. And Trump against all those machinations are directed, signed it. All those people
know that are surveyed by NSA and they know that the revelation of some detailed of their activates might destroy their careers.
The second class of new dirty methods represent what can be called "false flag operations in cyberspace". We will discuss
them later. See also
Everybody understood that the system is pretty well rigged on federal level and there two levels of justice -- one for neoliberal
"masters of the universe" who are by-and-large above the law, and another for shmucks. That's not a news. The news is
the level of sophistication is escaping the changes and use of the accusation of hacking falsified via false flag operation as
a new smokescreen to pass the blame to selected scapegoat.
Here we see very successful efforts to unleash Neo-McCarthyism campaign and put all the blame for Hillary defeat on Russians,
which later was extended into the color revolution against Trump of falsified changed of Russia collision. Few people understand the
US MSM is just a propaganda department of the US intelligence agencies and do their bidding. The fact that at some point CIA
controlled major journalists was known from Church commission hearings. And there was some backlash. But now the situation reversed and due
to the regime to total surveillance their
capability to dictate the agenda far exceed the level that was in the past.
moreover, now CIA cyberwarriors can cook any accusation using their
"technical capabilities" and spread is using subservant MSM in a matter of days creating the wave of hate which far exceed
what was described in famous dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell. Refuting those "cooked" intrusions (which are a new
and very nasty form
of false flag operations) is difficult what when (and if) it is done, typically it is too late. As Hermann Goering said (Hermann
Goering War Games):
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and
it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 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 greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
... ... ...
His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking American intelligence officer and psychologist
who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his
observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book
Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in
his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess.
Paradoxically while the value of cyberspace for offensive operations against adversaries is unclear, it is clear that it has
tremendous potential for conducting false flag operations serving as a pretext for real wars, or some "Show trials" of dissidents in
best Stalin traditions. and witch hunt against Trump is a just form of Show Trials in a court of public opinion.
Everything can be forged in cyberspace -- source of attack, attack methods. Fake personalities like
Guccifer 2.0 can be created to support the accusations. Sky is the
limit for false flag operations in cyberspace. Steele dossier in this sense is old school falsification. It is "DNC hack" that
is the harbinger of things to come.
Sky is the limit for false flag operations in cyberspace. Steele dossier in this sense is old school
falsification. It is "DNC hack" that is the harbinger of things to come.
We may feel uneasy by the idea that people now could be so easily manipulated into sacrificing themselves in wars at the whims of
the neoliberal elite, but perhaps we can be more concerned (and maybe even scared) at the thought that the capabilities to deceive
us are now greater not less that it was before. Much greater. They now really can create "artificial reality" using MSM.
In any case capabilities of intelligence agencies to hatch and then inject into MSM "DNC hack style disinformation" to blackmail
a major political figure using a "cyberspace" false flag operation are now enormous. Even POTUS can be the target of such
blackmail. In this sense the current
Russiagate hysteria makes Joseph McCartney like a pretty uninventive, even somewhat dull guy with very limited capabilities to frame his victims ;-)
Recently even Nunes was accused (with impunity) to be a Russian agent. This is "communists under each bed" type of witch
hunt on a new level.
Now we know that Russiagate was initially the criminal plot to exonerate Hillary and derail Sanders campaign hatched by
intelligence community in cooperation with connected members of Clinton campaign like John Podesta (who as a former WH chief of staff
has deep connections to "intelligence community".) Intelligence agencies and journalists connected with intelligence services
were recruited and the well planned obfuscation campaign started. which later morphed into color regulation against Trump (typical
for color revolution charges of rigged election were replaced by accusation of "collision" with foreign power.) All this
was done with full cooperation and eager participation of NYT, WaPo, CNN. MSNBC and other
neoliberal outlets. As the result in May 2016 a Special Prosecutor was appointed to take care of Trump removal.
Sanders did not have the courage to switch to alternative Open Convention to get a nomination from Democratic Party. He was so
afraid (or was threatened, the meaning of his visit with Obama is not known) that he chose to betray his voters and support Hillary. So with the help of neoliberal MSM a brazen plot to
exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law (with regard to the way she handled classified information with her
private email server; absolutely a crime, absolutely a felony) did succeed. In this sense Russiagate is in reality
It is an established fact that Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton. Following none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of
people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That was not an investigation, that was a
Potemkin village. It was a farce.
DOJ should convene grand jury to indict the major players (whose in high positions in DOJ and FBI should be fired). If like torturers
in Bush II era will not be brought to justice this is just another sign that the USA is neither a republic not a
Unfortunately Trump while a good tactician, is not strategic thinker on any level. He might have some courage which allowed him to fire Comey, and then tell that
truth to American people that this firing is about "Russiagate". But you need more that courage to take on "deep state". You need to have a plan.
You need to have a coalition.
And we do not know if Trump was threatened or not (see Chuck Schumer remark above.) He should address the nation from Oval Office and tell that FBI
story can only be believed by people with IQ below 70. And that DOJ should immediately appoint a Special Prosecutor
investigating this matter. But this will most probably just a fantasy.
Summarizing we can say that "FISA memo" is a testimony of tremendous personal courage of Nunes (note that one neoliberal MSM jerk already accused him being a
Russian spy). He did tremendous job driven by noble motives of restoring justice. And his memo undermined the Color
revolution against Trump by making Mueller position more vulnerable as he is clearly a member of the gang of FBI Mayberry
Machiavellians. It also put Rosenstein into defensive position. But this is an uphill battle and he might lose
at the end of the date. The neoliberal swamp is way too powerful and can consume even such courageous people as Nunes.
The color revolution is a subversive and covert operation of regime change which is conducted by intelligence agencies using patsy protestors,
subservant to intelligence agencies (or neoliberal ideology) part of MSM, large money infusions to fuel discontent (Steele dossier, Wolff's book, etc), as well as organized system of leaks that accuse the
current government in all possible sins (typically "corruption", but can be incompetence or other sins).
Controlled by intelligence agencies and neoliberal MSM (which are highly intersecting subsets) play the key role in brainwashing the public
that the government acts against their
interests and sustain the hysteria until the government
is deposed. they are the attack dogs of the color revolution against Trump.
Controlled by intelligence agencies and neoliberal MSM (which are highly intersecting subsets) play the key role in brainwashing the public
that the government acts against their
interests and sustain the hysteria until the government
is deposed. they are the attack dogs of the color revolution against Trump. The deploy system of well timed and carefully
coordinated with each other leaks to undermine the legitimacy of the legitimately elected government. In case of the Purple
color revolution they sustain anti-Russian hysteria which is the cornerstone of the efforts to depose Trump.
Typically large protests are organized using "professional protesters: groomed and well paid students and some parts of
"intelligencia" and professional class. In this sense the color revolution against Trump is abnormal: the only such episode happened during
The uniqueness of Purple color revolution against Trump is also that the main charge is not the falsification of the election
results, or personal corruption which is typical for color revolutions. It is the collision with a
foreign power, which is tantamount to treason. That's why instead of using "color scheme" (purple, yellow, etc) this
color revolution is most commonly called
Russiagate (which in a narrow sense is a set of fabricated allegations about foreign state "collusion" implicating the president and
family members.) As such is connected with NeoMcCartyism -- a witch hunt unleashed by neoliberal
MSM in which Communists were conveniently replaced by
"Russians". Which is a ethnic slur dangerously close to anti-Semitism. This fact escaped attention of presstitutes working
in neoliberal MSM such as NYT and WaPo, who
are proud of their "multiculturalism".
But traditionally each "color revolution" also has a "color" assigned to it. That's why we call it the "Purple
revolution" (purple was the color that Hillary and Bill wear after the defeat). This term is less common than the term
"Russiagate" but is more precise, suggesting the set of methods used to depose Trump.
Simplifying, you can understood color revolution as a soft civil war with a more powerful foreign power (and its
intelligence agencies) involved on the side of one of the parties. In Purple revolution two parties remind me
Alliance of neoliberals and neocons interesting in expanding and maintain of global neoliberal empire controlled from
Washington, DC. This coalition include most professionals (programmers, lawyers, accountants, etc), East Cost and California
elites, transnational corporations domesticated in the USA. Also include neocons (lobbyists for Military Industrial
Complex(MIC), most neoliberal MSM (the list too long, but
we can mention NYT, WaPo, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC ) and, as we now know, powerful factions of intelligence agencies including CIA
and FBI (see FBI
Mayberry Machiavellians and
A much weaker rag tag forces with high discontent toward neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization including large part of middle
class, remnants of adherents to New Deal (Sanders voters), "old-style" republicans (paleoconservatives), "tea party", libertarians,
and isolationalists (including weak anti-War movement on the left).
Includes some "traditional manufactures" and small business, which suffer from globalization. Also includes one major MSM (Fox) and some weaker outlets like Bretbart (alt-right)
In case of the USA this still looks like a soft color revolution, but instead of more powerful state involved on the side of the
plotters we supposedly have less
powerful state (but very sophisticated in such matters) -- Great Britain. Which was involved is key events of this color revolution
including creation of Steele dossier and spying on Trump in
Trump Tower, as well, most probably in the attempt to entrap Trump Jr. by organizing meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia
The key element of the color revolution (or using German term "putsch" ) that intelligence agencies organized after Trump election
the gambit to appoint the special prosecutor. Unfortunately for organizers they run into
some unexpected difficulties, when they key element of the charge of collision with Russians ("Steele
dossier") was discredited (as well as close connection of
Fusion GPS to FBI and the fact
that they financed certain journalists and media outlets became known), illegal surveillance of Trump team revealed (FICA memo
scandal) and the "collision" between certain elements of Justice Department and FBI (
Machiavellians ) became known under the name
Such attempts to depose sitting president by the "Deep State" were
not unprecedented (JFK assassination is probably one close instance, Nixon removal is another). The key role was played by close
circle of people within FBI, CIA and Justice Department. Roger Stone listed several elements of the putsch in his post (Stone Cold Truth):
Politically weaponized the federal government’s electronic intelligence capabilities to spy on a presidential candidate and his
Colluded with foreign and non-state intelligence agents to manufacture evidence used as false pretexts for securing FISA warrants(s)
that employed the national security laws of the United States to give illicit, illegal cover to this political espionage,
Used the fruits of this political espionage activity to damage or otherwise hinder this candidate once they had become president-elect
and eventually President of the United States through surreptitious releases of the criminally-procured information,
Fabricated and instigated false allegations about foreign state collusion implicating the president’s election campaign and family
Perpetuated this massive criminal fraud on the American people for nearly a full year by manipulating and abusing the investigatory
and prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice.
We can see several elements of this "color revolution", the putsch of intelligence agencies against Trump that are typical for any color revolution and allow to classify this putsch as yet
another color revolutions:
Letter from a bunch of State Department diplomats -- the Department was infested with neocons since Clinton (or may be even
earlier, since Reagan) so this is far from
surprising (compare with a similar letter of Ukrainian diplomats during EuroMaydan)
Attempt to organize protests during inaugurations (which by-and-large fail). Provocations to create racial discord and hate for
Vicious and non-stop barrage of attacks on Trump administration in MSM and promotion of Steele dossier on the dominant part
of US MSM. The list includes but is not limited to:
Guardian (UK newspaper with substantial US audience),
for Russian and Putin runs so deep in Washington and major MSM that people behind the scenes are dead set on finding any way possible
to depose Trump, or at least prevent him from making friendly overtures to Russia.
Series of damaging for Trump administration and well coordinated leaks ( Steele dossier, Comey leaks,
Luke Harding rehash of Steele Dossier, Wolff book
which implicitly suggest that Trump is insane and should be remove, while lionizing Bannon (I view it mostly as "make money fast exercise"
of a gossip columnist, which only by extension became an attempt to discredit Trump), etc
"Special Prosecutor gambit" -- modeled after Clinton Starr inquiry and which used "sacrifices" of Comey to appoint the
Special Prosecutor who assembled "dream team" of very hostile to Trump prosecutors and paralyzed Trump administration for at least
Pro-Clinton elements of Democratic Party are the core of anti-Trump color revolution. They entered into alliance with neocons
to achieve their goals (in a way neocons in this story look like turncoats who betrayed their own party).
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:
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.
I realize that Clinton wing of Democratic Party (soft neoliberals) and their supporters which include a part of Wall Street, large
part of Silicon valley and most MSM progressives hate Donald Trump so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking
him down. So they joined efforts with the neoconservatives. That's why war-mongering against Russia is now OK for them and Democratic
party now is just another War Party (as was evident from Hillary campaign).
Many people who detest Trump view Russiagate as the most effective path to achieve Trump’s impeachment, so this desirable end justifies
whatever means. that makes them very similar to supported of Ukrainian Maydan, which removed Yanukovich and installed far right junta
with a lot of unsavory characters. But to me it look like Trump surrendered after just 100 of anti-Russian smear campaign launched by
neocons. So why they still want to finish him? So it must be more to it; there might be some skeletons in the closet
revealing of which previous administration and their factions in intelligence services the are afraid to death . Because their
action is as close to sedition as one can get. In other words they went va bank by unleashing on Trump Steele dossier
(va bank is a common expression among German speakers; which means to put everything at risk in order to win -- similar to "all
in" but with implicit suggestion of weak cards in hand implying the tremendous level of risk). And nowhere
it is more clear then in sordid case of Steele dossier, which looks more and more like intelligence operation of UK government, not
so much an attempt to earn quick bucks by Steele private boutique (the risk for Steele of engaging in the activity tantamount to
influencing US Presidential Elections being a foreign national was way too much)
It is sad that plans were made to remove the Pres. even before he was elected. It has been the use of a special prosecutor has
certainly been a factor in damaging the remnants of the republics and the democracy. From what we know as of January 2018 we can distinguish following partially overlapping operations
(listed not exactly in chronological order):
Attempt to instigate violate demonstrations on the capital during inauguration
Michael Flynn removal from the
Trump team (as a former head of military intelligence agency he was the most dangerous for plotters member of Trump team). Also allowed the Deep State to place one of their own as National Security Advisor.
Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambitThat includes firing of Comey, hysteria about this event and subsequent Rosenstein actions, which on surface were decided
to quell the hysteria, but in reality was just the last move of the gambit with a "check" to Trump. From this point already
weakened and partially capitulated to neocons Trump administration was paralyzed and became completely subservant to
to replace failed (and discredited) by Strzok-gate Russiagate narrative with the
Shooting for the use of 25 amendment to remove Trump.
As Peter Van Buren said "His opponents are trying to use the 25th Amendment as a backdoor to impeachment, but that’s more
Maoist than American."
Fascinating response by the Neoliberal MSM and
the establishment who have invested so much in the Trump Russia collusion narrative to so called Nunes memo: Trump was called
to testify before Mueller commission under Oath. As
Pat Buchanan noted Trump should be beware Perjury Trap as "what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests,
a "witch hunt." It is a Trump hunt."
"Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with Russia. We should definitely not be going down that
path. We need to get out of all these wars. I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We
are trampling the fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to start indicting
people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly unconstitutional."
IMHO the current neo-McCarthyism campaign that was deployed to solve some internal problems within the Democratic Party (rejection by
electorate and subsequent political fiasco of Hillary Clinton) is a very dangerous tool. You can't blame Trump victory on Russia.
It is a sign of systemic crisis of neoliberalism in the USA, somewhat similar to the crisis of Marxism the USSR experienced before dissolution.
Rust Belt voters rejected Hillary and that was it.
In such crisis the elite is de-legitimized and often resort to dirty tricks to regain the lost legitimacy. A war is one such
trick. Neo-McCarthyism campaign is another. Of course Russia in far from being a saint and bear responsibility for unleashing the civil
war in Donbass (and generally destabilizing Ukraine -- it is a curse to be a neighbor our of such a large and powerful country;
Canadians and Mexicans probably think the same ;-) , but what currently we see in major MSM looks to me like a classic witch hunt
with the implicit goal to whitewash humiliating for neoliberal Democrats (Clinton wing of the party) defeat and blame it on the external
force (Putin looks really like "Deus Ex Machina" for Democrats ;-)
Russiagate can be viewed on three distinct levels:
A smoke screen designed to hide Hillary Clinton political fiasco and preserve the power of Clinton wing of Democratic Party
over the party as a whole (by-and-large this plot was successful). Hillary Clinton no longer is viewed by Democratic Party as an
evil warmonger who waited chances to gain power but throwing Sanders under the bus by illegal methods. The attention is skillfully
switched to "Russian machinations" including DNS hack (which is actually a leak, not a hack ). Questionable players like Christopher
Steele and Crowdstrike were higher to advance this agenda.
Attempt of intelligence community and MIC to secure funding in view of possible cuts that can be enacted by Trump (these
worries proved to be fake; Trump dies no have any realistic plan of cutting MIC expenses or intent to rule on Pentagon extravagant
spending). But at least during election campaign Trump alarmed intelligence community including a powerful and well paid strata of
"Washington national security parasites" with the idea to reach some level of detente with Russia (at least during the election
campaign) rightly considering the level of hostility achieved under Obama dangerous and counterproductive (to the extent that Obama
might be controlled by Brennan it might be not Obama personal fault). In this sense Trump also crossed the line (with the only
difference that he did it during he election campaign) and at this point all power of neocons and neolib including their factions
in intelligence agencies was unleashed for his removal.
Attempt to poison the US public opinion to the level, which excludes any possible future attempts of detente with Russia for
at least a decade (this goal as of January 2018 was probably already achieved) . this is also important for neoliberal elite
from geostrategic point of view as explained in the following post (
Jan 7, 2018):
The USA’s nightmare is Europe (EU, or geographical Europe, incl. for ex. Norway) finally getting together its geo-proximal, cultural
ties, economic dependency / energy input, massive trade exports and imports, with Russia, and affirming, protecting these exchanges.
Previous, the existence of the USSR, the specter of ‘communism’ served to keep dominant economic players in Europe on board with
the US aggression / control.
The USA will do *xxx* to prevent any agreements between Russia and Europe, as the US would then
lose its status as decider, broker, even wielding military might and threat might be no use, doomed to failure even before implementation.
All US moves, even now in Iran, are pointed to desperately blocking new alliances, nobody can join anyone, an exercise in fragmentation,
divide-to-rule. The EU-Russ continent, heh right to China (another story..) energy-rich, powerful, peaceful, as hopefully imagined!
would send the USA into a pathetic backwater of bandits, oligarchs, urban guerrilla warfare, starving exploited children, etc.
- all of which are already visible.
From the point of view of propaganda this was a new McCarthyism campaign -- a completely manufactured hysteria which
try to turn huge disappointment of the American people with neoliberalism and neoliberal oligarchy into a convenient scapegoat -- Russia
and President Putin ("Putin did it" memo).
That's why Steele dossier was created and advertized: as part of anti-Trump coup d'état by the neocons, Clinton neoliberals and parts
of the US intelligence services. In both case the interests of the USA and national security suffers. In a way both neocons and
neoliberals are elements of foreign influence that do not care much about ordinary Americans. In any case now two third of US
population now is brainwashed into adamantly anti-Russian mindset, increasing the risk of the major war
First let's discuss the historical origins of the term “color revolution”. The latter is a new subversive tactics
which was successfully used as a means to triggering “regime change”, which have emerged in a large number of countries in the course
of the last decade, especially in xUSSR space (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, etc). But the key methods of "color revolution" coup
d'état can be traced to Chilean coup d'état or even earlier.
The “color revolution” is a US intelligence operation which consists of covertly supporting as well as infiltrating protest movements
with a view to triggering “regime change” under the banner of a pro-democracy template. The objective of a “color revolution” is to
manipulate or delegitimize elections (if the winner in nor desired candidate), foment social unrest and use the protest movement to
topple an existing legitimate government. Formatting social unrest is done via media (and achieving media dominance is an important
step in unleashing a color revolution) which serve important role in any color revolution. Similar to the role of aviation in
modern wars. With the only difference that it drops propaganda bombs. The goal is always the same -- to install a compliant pro-neoliberal,
pro-US government (“puppet regime”).
The main underlying features of color revolution is that those activities are structured as intelligence operation and some
players might not even understand that they are puppet of pretty nefarious scheme and believe in noble slogans that are on the
surface of events. A lot of technologies in color revolution was taken from Trotskyite and Bolsheviks handbooks. That include
the role of students as foot soldiers of regime change, Attempt to capture media as the first step, digging dirt on key figures
of existing government (corruption is the favorite change in such revolutions). Color revolution added several new features:
massive financial infusion to keep unrest going, coordinating role of neoliberal NGO and think tanks in particular country, penetration
into and use of law enforcement for deposing the members of the current government (typically on corruption changes).
This contact bombardment of public with negative information about the current administration and "outsize" role of intelligence
agencies we can observe in the current campaign to de-legitimize and depose President Trump. Instead of corruption changes
they use the change of cooperation with country which they demonized and present as adversary -- Russia. That why
some call this color revolution Russiagate. As James Petras observed (Imperial
Power Centers, July 24, 2017) :
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid
unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime.
While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is riven by rival power centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers
are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
In the first place, the strategically placed security apparatus is no longer under Presidential control: They operate in coordination
with insurgent Congressional power centers, mass media and extra-governmental power configurations among the oligarchs (business,
merchants, arms manufacturers, Zionists and special interest lobbies).
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting
fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking
to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting
to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the
prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They
are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington.
Engineered protest movements are carefully planned and well financed (to the extent of create a caste of "professional protesters").
Again the key feature of all color revolutions is that they are essentially intelligence ops performed via NGO and similar organization,
with huge role of the US embassy as the coordinating center. They use non-governmental organizations and opposition media to recruit
Creation of powerful opposition media is the necessary prerequisite step in preparation of the color revolution. The protest need
to be televised in order to amplify their significance (preferably out of proportion and TV is perfectly suitable for that, using the
necessary angles to create impression of huge crowd and interviewing patsies to show deep discontent), and create a critical mass of
discontent among the population. Again, the change of corruption is the favorite delegitimization tactics in such events (and
who in modern political life is not corrupt, or do not have skeletons in the closet?).
As if it can be stopped by the "regime change" (often after color revolution corruption and looting of the country becomes much worse,
reaching like was case with Russia in 1990th and Ukraine in 1990th and after 2014 really epic scales). Often even more corrupt
oligarchs come to power as a result, only more subservant to multinational corporations. And BTW its multinationals such as GE
which control the US media too. How convenient.
Published evidence suggests that there were at least four intelligence organization involved:
CIA (Brennan probably via FBI and also via the level of control of the MSM and Obama. CIA might be the initial source of dirt
that went in Steele
dossiervia round trip to GB.
FBI via Comey,
Strzokgate and Steele dossier( Hoover was the pioneer of intelligence agencies interference and collecting dirt of politicians to survive. Then came
Allen Dulles (who might also be instrumental in FDR murder). Now it was Brennan, Comey, Clapper and probably some other highly
place officials via control of Hillary Clinton email investigation and initiating surveillance of Trump team.
MI6 (via Steele Dossier and possible help with surveillance of Trump team)
NSA -- via intercepting Trump team communications and participating in create "17 agencies memo".
Much of this like with JFK assassination is hidden and might surface in a decade or two. Currently we know very little. The
elements of this scheme about which we have some information are:
Creation of Steele dossier to prevent Trump for winning.
The use of DNC leak -- presenting it as DNC hack and implicating Russians (via Crowdstrike),
Obtaining FICA order to wiretap members of Trump team (might also be done via MI6, details are currently unclear),
Attempt to hijack election college,
Campaign of unmasking launched at the final days of Obama administrations.
Obama attempt to fuel anti-Russian campaign (expulsions of diplomats and seizure of property)
Attempt to disrupt inauguration,
Removal of Flynn from Trump team
"Appointment of the special prosecutor gambit".
Proven role of some rogue elements in FBI in exonerating Hillary in "emailgate" scandal and later in Mueller investigation
The basic chronology might be as following (partially based on Stefan Molyneux YouTube presentation):
[Mar 02, 2015]: Hillary Clinton emailgate scandal broke lose.
NYT reports that "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct
government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated
federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. Mrs.
Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department.
Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time,
as required by the Federal Records Act"
[Jun 13, 2015]:CrowdStrike was financed to the tune of $100 million by Google Capital. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet, has been a
staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor to the Democratic Party. (Stefan Molyneux)
[Oct ?? 2015]:Fusion GPS became key anti-Trump player -- the dirt digger. During the Republican
primary campaign, The
Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor
Paul Singer, hired the
American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition
research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.
Please note that Christopher Steele at this time is not yet in the picture. This will happen six months later when the
investigation became funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC.
For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became
the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.
[Mar ??, 2016]: Fusion GPS supposedly approached the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee
through the law firm Perkins Coie offering to continue their opposition research into Donald Trump in return for payment.[Wikipedia]
[Apr ??, 2016]: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee used lawyer Marc E. Elias to retain and
fund Fusion GPS. At this time Christopher Steele came into picture, may be via his ties with McCabe and FBI activities to derail
Trump. In April 2016, the investigation contract
and funding were taken over by Marc Elias, a partner in
the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and
head of its Political Law practice. Elias was the attorney of record for the
Committee (DNC) and the
Clinton presidential campaign.In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis Business
Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, and used by them to produce the dossier.Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS has stated
that Steele did not pay to any of his sources.[Wikipedia]
[Apr-Jun, 2016]: Wikileaks obtains something like 53,000 [DNC] emails and 17,000 attachments
[Jun ??, 2016]: After Wikileaks possession of leaked emails became known, a cover-up operation was started by
DNC and Clinton campaign. The decision was made to used Russia as a scapegoat for the leak accusing them in hacking. False
flag operation using Crowdstrike was staged to make this plausible. Dirty former MI6 officer Christopher Steele (who was expelled from Moscow for espionage more then 20
years ago and as such is a "person non grata" in Moscow) and his company Orbis Business Intelligence are hired
by Fusion GPS to investigate Trump’s possible connections to Russia. This company previously was used to Statement from Christopher Steele: “Between June
and early November 2016 Orbis was engaged by Fusion to prepare a series of confidential memoranda based on intelligence
concerning Russian efforts to influence the US Presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump.”
[Jun 9, 2016]:Entrapment plot against Trump Jr. Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort attended a meeting arranged by publicist Rob Goldstone
with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya (the client of Fusion FPS) supposedly for opposition
research on Hillary Clinton, but Veselnitskaya instead focused on the opposition to the Magnitsky Act. President Trump's Outside
Counsel Mark Corallo later remarked “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the
president and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.”
Crowdstrike investigates DNC leaks and promptly attributes it to Russians. FBI is deprived of any access to factual information and uses
Crowdstrike findings. After very damaging for Hillary DNC leak (iether by Seth Rich or some other disgruntled DNC
staffer) which proved corruption of DNC and the plot to deny Sanders any changed to become Democratic Party candidate, as well as
the level of control of DNC by Clintons, the decision was made to blame Russia for the lean (using Crowdstrike which has
connections both with CIA and FBI as well as Clinton team) and use Trump connection with Russia to undermine the prospect of his
election. The CrowdStrike attribution are not independently verified as the DNC refused to turn over its equipment to the FBI. .
The connection between CrowdStrike and Perkins Coie should raise additional questions. (Stefan Molyneux)
[Jun 14, 2016]:Russiagate smear campaign against Trump was launched in by major US MSM. The Washington Post published an article entitled “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole
opposition research on Trump" which reported: “DNC leaders
were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations chief saying that their
information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity.” “That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC
lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who handled computer
crime cases, called [CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry], whom he has known for many years. "Within 24 hours, Crowdstrike had
installed software on the DNC’s computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate who had gained access, when and how.
" Charging good money after the horse has left the barn; it's funny that clearly political action of "attribution"
(qualified cyber adversary like CIA leaves zero traces in such cases or deliberately leaves false traces ) is hidden under tech
jargon -- my God, a "super sophisticated" system was installed that now, when intruders are long gone will truck them ;-). From
presentations available on YouTube Crowdstrike are typical security snake oil salesmen promising a lot but delivering very
little (much like ISS in the past). It is impossible fully compensate for architectural flaws of Windows without
imposing "military base" regime which is unacceptable for organizations like DNC. Moreover good adversary would use Crowdstrike
software for perpetration much like CIA used Kaspersky software in the past.
[Jun 15, 2016]: A blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0
claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from
[Jun 26, 2016] Bill Clinton has a 30 min meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch
at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport. The encounter took place ahead of the public release Tuesday morning of
the House Benghazi Committee's report on the 2012 attack on a US consulate in Libya. the meeting looks like a quid pro quo
of "protect Hillary and you'll get a new great job Loretta under Hillary administration"...
[Jun 30, 2016] The new about the meeting reached MSM. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said on
The Mike Gallagher Show that the meeting was “so terrible” and “one of the big stories of this week, of this month, of this
year.” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas tweeted: “Lynch & Clinton: Conflict of interest? An attorney, cannot represent two
parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict.”
LA Times. Later it became known that Loretta Lunch instructed Comey to call Hillary email scandal "a matter".
During May 2017 testimony James Comey, that it marking the moment he decided that the Department of Justice was not capable
of an independent investigation into Hillary Clinton.
The moment Comey lost faith in DOJ's Clinton probe - CNNPolitics
[Jul 02, 2016]: Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Peter Strzok, who gave her special "HQ treatment". The interview lasted approximately three and a half
hours and was not conducted under oath. No transcripts of the meeting exist. Later Hillary Clinton claimed that she gave a "voluntary interview" to the FBI today
regarding her email arrangements while she was secretary of state. James Comey admitted: Loretta Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bill
Clinton was the turning point in the email investigation.
Business Insider Director Comey claimed that she did not lied to FBI during
this interview. Director Comey admitted that he did not participate himself in the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton, nor did he
talk to all of the agents who were present at the interview. While there was no recording or full transcript of the interview,
there is an analysis which may or may not be provided to Congress.
[Jul 06, 2016]: Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the case based on the FBI’s recommendation. Justice Department
formally closes Clinton email investigation with no charges -
LA Times. Atty. Gen Loretta Lynch said she had met late Wednesday with Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted
[Jul 10, 2016]: Seth Rich was killed.
[Jul 22, 2016]: Wikipeak published leaks emails and attachments. A cache of more than 19,000 e-mails was leaked
on July 22, 2016.
[Jul 22, 2016]:Another false flag operation to implicate Russians ? Major MSM report about previous unknown hacker going by the moniker "Guccifer
2.0" who claimed on a WordPress-hosted blog to have been
acting alone in hacking the DNC. Might be a false flag operation by rogue elements of the US intelligence services, a part of effort to implicate Russians in DNC leak.
[Jul 24, 2016]: It became clear the DNC has thrown Sanders under the bus, but the role of FBI is depriving him from
being Democratic Party candidate still remains hidden.Sanders urged Wasserman
Schultz to resign following the leaks and stated that he was "disappointed" by the DNC email leaks, but said that he was "not shocked.
In reality he was robbed in daylight. But not only by Wasserman Schultz but also by the "gang of three at FBI who
essentially prevented his nomination by swiping the dirt about Hillary Clinton handing of classified emails on the private email
server under the carpet. Peter Strzok supposedly played outside role in this fateful decision. But that became known only in
[Jul 25, 2016]: Democratic Convention 2016 opens in at the
Center in PhiladelphiaHillary became
the Democratic party nominee. Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to reside due
to her role in derailing Sanders candidacy. Sanders switched camps and endorsed Hillary Clinton instead of fighting her
nomination. As Trump sarcastically commented about Sanders endorsement of Hillary: 'Bernie is now
officially part of the rigged system': Trump unloads on Sanders for 'selling out,' says it's like Occupy Wall Street endorsing
Donald Trump unloads on Bernie Sanders for 'selling out' Daily Mail Online
[Jul 25, 2016]:The
that it would investigate the DNC hack.
The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to
Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the
emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."
(Wikipedia aka Ciapedia ;-)
[Jul ??, 2016]Steele dossier reaches FBI. Steele, on his own initiative, supplied a report he had written to an FBI agent
in Rome. His
contact at the FBI was the same senior agent with whom he had worked when investigating the FIFA scandal. By
early October 2016, he had grown frustrated at the slow rate of progress by the FBI investigation, and cut off further contact
with the FBI.
At this point Steele dossier got to the desk of Peter Strzok, adamantly anti-Trump FBI
official with strong links to CIA and probably personally Brennan.
[July ??, 2016]Crowdstrike attribution is used for increasing the scope of vicious anti-Russian campaign was launched in the media with the full support and encouragement of Obama administration
to swipe the dirt about DNC pushing Sanders under the bus and Clinton emailgate scandal as well as the problem with Hillary
[Aug 25, 2016]:Brennan makes the "all in" move adopting a highly political role and endorsing
Steele dossier: according to NYT reports, CIA Director John Brennan briefed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on ,
and alleged that “unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.” (Stefan Molyneux)
[Aug ??, 2016]: Reid had
written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the “connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign,” and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter
Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had
recently visited Moscow.
[Sep ??, 2016]: Steele, following instructions from Fusion GPs briefed several MSM. On Sep 23, 2016 Yahoo News published an
article about possibilities of ties between Carter Page and Kremlin.
[Sep ??, 2016]Following a report from the Daily Mail in September 2016, Weiner was investigated by the FBI for
sexting with a 15-year-old girl. His laptop was seized and emails related to the
Clinton email scandal were found on it, causing a controversy late in the presidential election. On May 19, 2017, Weiner
pled guilty to one count of transferring obscene material to a minor. His wife,
Huma Abedin, filed for divorce prior to Weiner's
guilty plea. In September, he was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. On November 6, 2017, Weiner began his sentence.
[Sep ?? 2016]: FBI applied to FISA court to establish surveillance on unknown number of members of Trump team (at
least Carter Page) possibly using Steele dossier as a pretext.
Looks like rogue elements in FBI used "Steele Dossier" to obtain court order for wiretapping some members of
Trump team such as Carter Page (Strzokgate).
With the dirt explicitly planned to be used as "insurance" in case of Trump victory.
[Sep ??, 2016]: FISA warrant was authorized against Page, just after he left the Trump campaign (WaPo).
[Oct 7, 2016]: Damaging for Trump "17 agencies memo" surfaced. This "17 agencies memo" was
cooked by Brennan (with possible support of Clapper) by using small pre-selected team of "analysts" (in which probably Peter
Strzok played the leading role) and presented as the view of the whole US intelligence community. On October
7, 2016 . On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued
a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is
made up of 16 agencies, in
addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Yes,
17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking
The 17 agencies memo was used for amplification of the anti-Russian campaign in MSM. Neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA reached high pitch.
[Oct ??, 2016]: The FBI reached an agreement with Steele to pay him to continue his work. Looks like the agreement
never materialized as Steele was unable to provide the necessary verification for his claims.
[Oct ?? 2016]: [Wikipedia propagates questionable info about how David Corn got the
dossier, in view of role of Top FBI Lawyer Who Was
Demoted Now Linked To Leaking Bogus Trump Dossier to MSM] On instructions from Fusion PGS Steele personally compiled 33 pages and passed on what he discovered so far to the anti-Trump reporter
David Corn from Mother Jones magazine.[Wikipedia].
On Dec 22, 2017 it became known that another possible source was not Steele but FBI Lawyer James Baker who
communicated with David Corn at this time and was demoted later for the leak.
[Oct 28, 2016]: Due to the pressure from NYC FBI office who uncovered Comey announced that the investigation into Hillary "bathroom" email server is resumed based on new
emails uncovered in probe into Anthony Wiener sexing scandal (which actually were available to FBI since September, so "why now"?
). FBI reopening
investigation into Hillary private email server - Business Insider. Strzok was assigned to conduct the investigation
with predictable results. But the problem with this announcement is that it was made just a 10 days before the elections and
violates the notion of "quite period" before election where such news should not be released. Looks like Comey has second
thoughts after throwing Sanders under the bus.
Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former
intelligence officer’s conversations with Russian sources, noted, “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and
assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.”
It maintained that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his
Democratic and other political rivals.” It claimed that Russian intelligence had “compromised” Trump during his visits to
Moscow and could “blackmail him.” It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based
on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”
The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was “shock and horror.” The FBI, after receiving the first
memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American
associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the
material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which
referred to members of Trump’s inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. “It’s quite
clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on,” he says.
“This is something of huge significance, way above party politics,” the former intelligence officer comments. “I think
[Trump’s] own party should be aware of this stuff as well.”
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, “I have
nothing to do with Russia.”
[Nov 06, 2016]:WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.
(Wikipedia), This was another deliberate attempt to influence an election as this should be a "quite" period" for such things.
Like Trump, Flynn sees a military ally in controversial Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he was seated next to at a
banquet in Moscow last year. Flynn has also appeared several times on the state-owned TV station, Russia Today, which the U.S.
State Department has accused of being a mouthpiece for Putin.
... ... ...
Flynn's convention appearance puzzled many generals he had served with, as it broke their unofficial code of not picking
sides in presidential races.
Flynn gained further notoriety when he retweeted an anti-Semitic tweet that said, "Not anymore, Jews. Not anymore." He later
apologized for the retweet, claiming it was a "mistake."
Obama administration engaged in fierce campaign of "unmasking" the result of surveillance of Trump team in which
several members of its administration participated (Susan Rice in primary role). With the goal of discrediting Trump team
and specifically removal of Flynn from the team.
However, there are 20 high-ranking officials within the U.S. government who have to power to approve requests to reveal
those identities if they deem that information is necessary to understanding the value of the intelligence. That process is
called "unmasking," and Rice had the authority to do so while serving as national security adviser.
[Nov ??, 2016]: McCain got the dossier and spread it within Washington circles.
[Dec 09, 2016]: President Obama ordered the entire
States Intelligence Community to conduct an investigation into Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. election — and
provide a report before he leaves office on January 20, 2017
[Dec 29, 2016]: Obama makes his last New Year present to Russia a fuels Russiagate hysteria. He expelled 35 Russian
diplomats and seized Russian property in the USA under the pretext of Russia influencing
the US Presidential elections.
Along with 17 agencies memo that fueled further neo-McCarthyism campaign again Russia and damaged Trump team.
Another entrapment plot -- this time against Flynn: Attempt of Flynn to limit the damage of the this move later were used for Flynn removal from the Trump team. All
his conversation were wiretapped and later leaked. In a way this was entrapment as the conversations were recorded. later
the recoding were used first to oust Flynn from Trump team and later by Mueller to
indict him on technical charge of lying to FBI to get additional dirt of Trump.
[Early January 2017]: a two-page summary of the Trump dossier was presented to President Barack Obama and
President-elect Donald Trump in meetings with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA
Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
Christopher Steele - Wikipedia
[Jan 10, 2017]: Steele goes into hiding.
[Jan 10, 2017]: Just before inauguration, Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. Clinton claimed to be
unaware and unconnected to the event. [Wikipedia]
On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations
that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN stated that it would not
publish specific details on the memos because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".
Following the CNN report,BuzzFeed published a 35-page dossier that it said was the
basis of the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump
that could be used to blackmail him.
NBC reported that a senior U.S. intelligence official said that Trump had not been previously briefed on the contents of the
although a CNN report said that a statement released by
James Clapper in early January confirmed that the
synopsis existed and had been compiled for Trump.
[Jan 20, 2017]: Trump inauguration was accompanied some protests like is common in color revolution scenarios, but
is atypical for the US inauguration. They did failed to achieve the necessary scale in order to serve as a "trigger for
further disturbances" nessesary to trigger further color revolution protests. There were no charges of policy brutality. Only 217 protesters were arrested.
Trump inauguration protest
damages parts of downtown Washington - CBS News
The bulk of the criminal acts happened at 10:30 a.m. when 400 to 500 people on 13th Street destroyed property, Interim
Police Chief Peter Newsham said. The protesters were armed with crowbars and threw objects at people and businesses,
destroying storefronts and damaging vehicles. Police used pepper spray to diffuse the situation.
[Jan 21, 2017]:Campaign for Flynn removal from Trump team started. After inauguration dirt of several member of Trump team was surfaced
and first of all on general Flynn (who was important link to intelligence agencies in Trump administration) General Flynn served
director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014. The fact the
Flynn lobbied Russians to take more consolatory stance on Israel actions and not to retaliate for expulsion of 35 diplomats will
become known much later. At this time his meetings are presented by MSM as a clear collision with the direct goal to discredit
him and remove him from the team.
[Jan 23, 2017]: Was this connected with Trump team wiretapping? Robert Hannigan, the director of GCHQ, has
resigned from his job as head of one of the three Government intelligence agencies after just two years.GCHQ would only say that Mr Hannigan had left his post for "personal reasons" and that he was not sacked or subject to
disciplinary proceedings. He had been director general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office before that. At the time
he took on the job, GCHQ had been forced onto the defensive following the leak of information about mass surveillance by Edward
Snowden, a former CIA employee.
GCHQ boss Robert
Hannigan quits for 'personal reasons' after just two years
[Feb 13, 2017]: The first victim of Russiagate -- former general Flynn was forced to resign from Trump administration.
[Mar 22, 2017]: Politico published an article entitled "Nunes claims some Trump transition
messages were intercepted" reporting: "House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent
surveillance following November’s presidential
election." Immediately Nunes get under fire and gets investigated.
[Apr 2, 2017]: Mike Cernovich claimed that Susan Rice was identified as the person who unmasked members of Trump
[May 8, 2017]: Comey was fired by Trump. Mr. Trump explained the firing by citing Mr. Comey’s handling of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, even though the president was widely seen to have benefited
politically from that inquiry and had once praised Mr. Comey for his “guts” in his pursuit of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign
[May 9-May 17, 2017]: The "appointment of the special prosecutor" gambit was launched. After the success with the removal
of Flynn (who might still have good connections with Military intelligence as as such was especially dangerous for plotters
appointment of the special prosecutor gambit was engineered. The included usage of Comey as sacrificed pawn and was supported by
the atmosphere of NeoMcCartyism already created in the country
and rogue elements in the Department of justice.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the
day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. It was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created
documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s
contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
[May 17, 2017]: Rosenstein appoints Mueller as the Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump-Russia connections and
possible Russia influence on the elections. With the indirect goal for force Trump resignation: shortly before
Mueller was interviews by Trump for the position of the director of FBI and was rejected. Now Comey destiny as a
leaker of government information hinged on the results on Mueller investigation. And they are long time friends.
Mr. Comey revealed for the first time that he turned over memos about his conversations with Mr. Trump to the special counsel,
Robert S. Mueller III.
[May ??, 2017]: Mueller took his task to provide a pretext to depose Trump seriously and hired rabid anti-Trump prosecutors including Peter Strzok and Andrew Weissmann (whom NYT called
Mueller’s Legal Pit Bull) creating
witch-hunt that paralyzed Trump administration. As if it is difficult to find less biased competent prosecutors in
this country. In other words Mueller cards were revealed.
[Jun 8, 2017]:During his testimony Comey before before the Senate Intelligence Committee
Comey admitted to be the source of leaks to media which triggered the appointment of the Special Prosecutor by
Rosenstein, but refused to answer question about FBI role in propagating and financing Steele dossier.
Mr. Comey acknowledged for the first time that the FBI. was investigating Trump team but personally Mr. Trump. .
Comey Testimony The 8 Big Questions James Comey Refused
[July ??, 2017]: Arrest of Imran Awan and possible role of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz in
organizing private spying on the members of Congress for the benefits of DNC and Democratic Party.
[July 20, 2017] FBI finally produced text messages from Strzok to Lisa Page that Horowitz office requested. Those
texts uncovered by Inspector General provided ample information about the level of his bias against Trump
[July ?? 2017]: Peter Strzok his illicit lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page
leaves Mueller team
[July 27, 2017]: Mueller and Rosenstein were informed about Peter Strzok text messages to Lisa Page
[Aug ??, 2017]: Peter Strzok was quietly removed from the Mueller investigation and demoted in FBI. Neither
Rosenstein, no Congress were informed.
[Oct 18, 2017]:Three Fusion GPS partners plead the Fifth in response to subpoenas to testify before the House
"In August, Simpson, the point-man on the dossier project, met with the Senate Judiciary Committee for 10 hours. That meeting was
held after Simpson and Fusion threatened to plead the Fifth in response to a subpoena threat from the Judiciary panel."
[Oct 21, 2017]: Fusion GPS that financed Steele dossier asks court to stop lawmakers from seeing financial records
[Oct 25, 2017]:It was revealed that Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC via Fusion GPS.
Hillary Camp Paid For Fusion GPS Steele Dossier – FBI Covered Steele’s Travel Expenses, The WaPo article claims the 2016
presidential campaign of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Fusion GPS
dossier alleging Russian ties with the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump and sordid phony personal smears of
Trump. The Post reported that Clinton campaign and DNC lawyer Marc Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $168K to
continue researching Trump after a Republican donor who originally funded the research pulled out in April 2016.The Clinton
campaign and the DNC continued to fund Steele’s research through the end of October.
The Dirty Truth About the Steele Dossier
[Nov 6, 2017]: Flynn was indicted by Mueller team along with another hapless staffer. Business Insider
The indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly
intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive.
[Dec 1, 2017]:Michael Flynn pleads guilty to
lying to FBI. He was previously entrapeed by Peter Strzok and charged with lying to FBI. This move by-and-large was viewed as
a desperate attempt of Mueller to survive under the barrage of revelations about Peter Strzok. And it suceccededed. Mueller probe
survives althouth he personally from this point was discredited as a partisan hack (which he was since 9/11).
[Dec 10, 2017]: Suspicions about the anti-trump plot within Justice Department and several intelligence agencies including
FBI were openly voiced during Congressional hearings. The "insurance policy" email suggested the existence of a
conspiracy within the FBI to rig the Presidential Election.
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
[Dec 11, 2017]: During his interview Michael Morell admitted the existence of the plot to remove Trump within
intelligence agencies. Conservative
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
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.
[Dec 19, 2017]:One of the central figures in "anti-Trump putsch" within Justice Department and intelligence agencies
Andrew McCabe was grilled for seven and a half hours by House Republicans in Russia meddling probe -
“I’ll be a little bit surprised if [Mr.
McCabe‘s] still an employee of the FBI this
time next week,” Mr. Gowdy told Fox News in a separate interview.
Now it looks like there is investigation of Mueller collision with the "FBI gang of
three" along with Mueller investigation of Trump. this became rteally convoluted but the degrees of freedom for Mueller
were severy cut now.
[Dec 20, 2017]: Several other key figures connected with "insurance policy" email are expected to testify under
oath to House intelligence committee. The list include Ohr, his wide, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
[Dec 22, 2017] More than 170 House Democrats signed a
letter supporting Mueller this week, and Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, took to the
floor of the Senate on Wednesday to warn that ousting the special counsel could spark a constitutional crisis.
[Dec 23, 2017]: Andrew McCabe announced his intention to resign from FBI in 90 days (when he can get full
pension). Trump sarcastically commented on this decision in a twit.
[Dec 26, 2017]: Damage control efforts and attempt to regroup and save Mueller skin in view of Peter Strzok role in the
Hillary email server investigation and pushing Steele dossier started. NYT tried to lower the expectations about year and half "Russiagate" investigation by rabidly
anti-Trump team does not provide enough information to change President with "collision" (BTW there is no such rime in Us
criminal codex). Now NYT pleads "give me dirt, any dirt on Trump" The End of Trump and
the End of Days - The New York Times:
Fury isn’t strategy, and there’s no need to extrapolate beyond the facts already in our possession. Take the inquiries into
the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia. They could screech to a halt tomorrow and we’d be left with more than enough
evidence of corrupt business dealings, conflicts of interest, shady back channels, awful judgment and outright lies among
Trump’s intimates to present voters with a powerful case against his fitness for office.
But by obsessing over clear “collusion” and insisting on visible puppet strings by which Vladimir Putin controlled
Trump, we have set the bar dangerously high. Mueller’s ultimate findings could be plenty ugly and still be deemed
The color revolution usually precede a "quite period" in which "professional protesters" are trained, indoctrinated and financed,
but no mass street protest occur:
In August 1999, the CIA set up a training program for a Serbian NGO entitled OTPOR which subsequently played a key role in the
engineered protest movement conducive to the downfall of president Slobodan Milosevic. A few years later, OTPOR established a training
and strategizing outfit entitled The Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies
(CANVAS).CANVAS became a consulting outfit specializing in “Revolution” on contract to the CIA.
... ... ...
What is at stake is a “color revolution” Made in America which is marked by fundamental rivalries within the
US establishment, namely the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming
The OTPOR-CANVAS-CIA model is nonetheless relevant. Several foundations involved in funding color revolutions
internationally are involved in funding the anti-Trump campaign.
Moreover, while CANVAS’ mandate is to oversee “color revolutions” internationally, it also has links with a number of NGOs currently
involved in the anti-Trump campaign including The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). OWS
launched by Adbusters was funded via the Tides Foundation which in turn is funded by a number of corporate foundations and charities,
including the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation and the Open Society Institute. Ford is known to have historical links
to US intelligence.
It is worth noting that the raised fist logo first launched by OTPOR in 1999 as a symbol of CIA sponsored color revolutions
(including Egypt during the Arab Spring), also constitutes the symbol of several organizations involved in the anti-Trump engineered
The Inauguration Disrupt Campaign: Disruptj20
... The Disruptj20.org campaign is calling for the disruption of
the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:
#DisruptJ20 is supported by the work of the DC Welcoming Committee, a collective of experienced local activists
and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support. We’re building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down
the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen. We’re also providing services like
housing, food, and even legal assistance to anyone who wants to join us.
The actions contemplated include “setting up blockades at checkpoints to prevent people from gaining access to the inauguration
proceedings”. A spokesperson confirmed that #DisruptJ20 campaign would be “creating a framework to support mass protests
and direct action to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump” .
This could potentially lead to violent clashes with tens of thousands of Trump supporters, which is the ultimate objective of
an engineered “Color Revolution” style protest movement supported covertly by US intelligence. It’s part of the logic of a “color
revolution” scenario (e.g. Kiev-Maidan, Cairo-Tahir Square) which is predicated on triggering confrontation and urban violence.
Is the Disrupt Campaign committed to deliberately staging violence on January 20?
“The idea is to shut down access to the parade as much as possible and slowing it down to a crawl,” said DisruptJ20 organizer
Legba Carrefour. “Then there’s the broader goal of shutting down the entire city around it and creating a sense of paralysis
that creates a headline that says, ‘Trump’s inauguration creates chaos.’” (NBC,
January 17, 2017)
The organizers of the engineered protest movement are funded by powerful corporate interests, they are supported by US intelligence.
The objective is not to undermine the racist right wing agenda of Donald Trump as conveyed in the video below. Quite the opposite.
"He is needy and amoral enough to just, you know, insult people for attention" -- Gawker
"Long a media
provocateur Wolff has optimized his barbed bitching for the Internet" -- New York Magazine
From his first book
Burn Rate Wolff emerged as a person with enormous ego, and extremely,
pathologically money hungry nut. A person with no moral code. To blackmail a person for Wolff is as simple as to drink a
glass of water, if it will bring him a couple of bucks. He represent an interesting perversion of journalism in the USA: slanderous
attack journalism without any balance or moral compass. And he has penchant of making notes of the conversation that the counterpart
consider private, or off-record. His main motivation is money and only money. While some of what he says is true, his descriptions
of people who often helped him to write his garbage is cruel and insensitive. You might be even entertained to read the clever caricatures
of everyone Wolff lied to, swindled, and stepped on in his quest for a quick buck
The book teaches us that that are much more grades of distortion of the truth them just intentional lying. It is prudent to view
this book in the context of the color regulation launched to depose Trump. In this sense it might be an opening move of the gambit "Unfit
to serve in the office". Previous gambit connected with sacrificing Comey to appoint the Special Prosecutor failed after Strzok-gate
was uncovered and Stele dossier discredited. Is Wolff another CIA produced pawn sacrificed in order to launch the next gambit
to depose Trump (as well as provide a smoke screen cover for "
Steele dossier fiasco").
The key here is to understand how promoted Wolff and secured his access to WH. His wandering inside WH was such a gross
violation of protocol that suggest that some powerful "sponsor" was involved. And the found disgruntled Bannon, used and destroyed
him in the process. The books can be viewed as a Bannon revenge ("burning the bridges") dictated to sympathetic ear. So
we can say that they succeeded in eliminating Bannon.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dismissed the book as “tabloid gossip” that was laced with “false and fraudulent claims.”
While this is true that is not the whole truth. It was actually a pretty powerful attack designed to undermine Trump (and earn
some money in the process -- the author looks not only sleazy but greedy too) by a pretty despicable pressitute and history of
distorting fact to suit his agenda. But who stands behind this sleaze in unclear. Like is the case with Steele, while equally
greedy and unscrupulous, both are not stupid enough in order to fail to understand how foray into such things might end.
The author excels in "soap opera" style of book starting with his 1999
Burn Rate How I Survived the Gold Rush Years on the Internet. His forte is to me
Michael Wolff makes his hero to look a bumbling semi-uneducated amateur.
Either Trump put the author's wife in jail, took away his kids or killed his dog because the level of dislike he has to Trump (who allowed
him into WH, not a small fit for sleazy gossip columnist) is really something. Reading this book was like watching a one guy just keeps
hitting the other sitting tied to the chair with a boxing glove; the author kept the zingers coming from everything from domestic policy
issues to Trump children.
The key message is that trump is out-of-touch and unfit to the President of the USA. Essentially
rehashed Hillary message.
The sensationalist and outlandish tone of the book makes me wonder
how much of what is written is even remotely true. If you're looking for an analysis of Trump's policies, don't waste your dollars.
This is mostly salacious gossip. In this sense the book belong to "make money fast" category
I found Wolff writing style annoying and too gossipy... But he is a
gossip columnist and this shows. As such he really belong to Vanity Fair pages. And the book properly compressed and rewritten
with less grammar error, less repetition, as well as more solid logical structure would make a fatly decent article in Vanity
Fair. Not more then that.
There are several point that are clear the book release mass hysteria in pro-Hillary
MSM and Trump reaction:
This is definitely attempt to take down Trump. A part of color revolution
against Trump. So Michael "sleazy" Wolff probably has some powerful sponsors among Clinton stalwarts.
Trump reaction was amateurish and counterproductive. Which actually confirms
some suspicion raised in the book. His "genius" tweet was especially damaging, even if it was designed as humor mocking
Wolff. Few people get the humor, most took it at face value. The only guy who actually raised to the
moment was Stephen Miller. I like his characterization on Bannon line attack on CNN in his
interview with Jake Tapper.
Bannon was the main or only Wolff source (90% of Wolf 17 or so "excursion" in WH were for
meeting Bannon). Bannon was an idiot to trust Wolff. He also proved to be completely out of depth and iether extremely naive or
extremely disgruntled in assessing Trump Tower Meeting with Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya organized by FBI
contractor Fusion GPS as a trap for Trump Jr. (or the quote was "re-constructed" by Wolff as a payment for all the access to WH;
"nothing personal, simply business" ;-) He also have pretty unrealistic ideas about foreign policy --
too much warmongering toward China and actually also toward Russia if we take into account his assessment of Trump tower meeting
at face value and not as one of Wolff "exaggerations", designed to make a book the bestseller and earn some serious money.
Trump attorney Charles Harder
said in a statement that “legal action is imminent” for Bannon allegedly violating his non-disparagement agreement with Trump
and making “in some cases outright defamatory” statements.
Calls Ivanka "stupid" and other character assassination.
Wolf is sleazy gossip columnist who will commit any unmoral acts for money. He is now rightfully afraid of possible legal consequences.
Wolf assertion that he want to inform people about danger that Trump represents is phony.
All he wants is money and a large scandal to feed his ego. That' shy he waited for a year to launch the book at one year of Trump
presidency. There might be other motives too as the book distracted attention from Steele dossier fiasco and Strzok-gate (Ex-Bush
adviser Why was Wolff allowed in White House):
you guys , now after the fake witch hunt of Russian dossier you are cheat enough to come out with this fake book and fake author
story to malign Trump, , ..... leave us Americans alone , do not waste resources of American tax payers in satisfying your arrogance
and ego, ... instead you must call Obama/Clintons on the MSM and ask the relevant questions how much damage they done to this
... ... ...
Trump team was dysfunctional at the beginning and allow this mole to do the damage. There was not clear lines of responsibility
and with flattery you can get pretty far. Looks like Bannon is the main culprit to blame but there might be other. "That person,
by all accounts, was former White House adviser Steve Bannon. While Trump may have simply known that the biographer of his idol,
Rupert Murdoch, was on site, it was Bannon who ensured Wolff had access. "
Why Steve Bannon let Michael
Wolff in the White House - Business Insider. The AP's White
House reporter, Zeke Miller, said that every time he saw Wolff there it was with an "appointment" badge rather than a "press"
The book provide Bannon's perspective on the events, which palatably was a payback for the access Bannon provided to this sleazy
gossip columnist. Bannon proved to be a political arsonist who burn
his bridges when he left the White House. And that probably influenced the final content of the book in a negative way, making it a
political revenge type of the book.
Several themes can discerned under the pile of garbage and gossip:
Trump didn’t intend to win, nor did he live a life planning
toward the Presidency. If we assume the Trump is a narcissist this is vey shaky hypothesis. Such people organically can't
image themselves losing. The last with little planning might be more plausible.
President actions like was in case of Bush II are based on instinct,
not so much of rational calculations. Might more plausible hypothesis but looks at Trump track record in real estate.
But the fact that he managed to depose all republican contenders suggest that there is more to that.
Those closest to the President wield the most power. This
is always true in any WH administration. Like for example was the case with Carter and Brzezinski to great detriment of the USA.
So trying to exaggerate this just show the evil nature of gossip columnist, not so much the inner working of Trump WH.
The presidency is far more than one person. This is also
not a news. And the fact that left hand does not know what right is doing is also a possibility with such
amount of staff and various Departments in federal government. For example intelligence agencies are semi-autonomous entries, which
like praetorian guard can revolt against the president and FBI did this recently.
Trump’s family is not just his saving grace, they are part of
who he is and who provides him balance. This undermines the hypothesis that Trump is a narcissist. The latter are
"lone wolf" type of people, who family usually hates and fear.
He is unable to picture the real picture of Donald Trump or understand
what his election was about. and it was about the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and rejection by electorate establishment stooges
like Hillary. The victory of this neocon warmonger would be a much bigger slap in the USA face the Trump.
Before you read the book please listed to Trump old interview
Donald Trump -- Charlie Rose. IMHO he does not come out of this
interview as bumbling idiot. I strongly recommend to listen to it in full.
In two previous case of removal of president intelligence agencies played outside role. This is also true about color revolution
against Trump: it looks like the headquarters of color revolution are within the intelligence agencies and the main actors are FBI employees
and controlled by CIA press.
John F. Kennedy was entirely right about the CIA … and that was back in 1961. Imagine how much worse the global CIA-run
tyranny is in 2017, 56 years later. In addition to brutally murdering the American president, how many other heads of state
have been summarily assassinated by the Central Intelligence Agency?
Not only did the C.I.A. frame Lee Harvey Oswald because he was actually working for Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, they
also killed John F. Kennedy, Jr. to maintain the ongoing cover-up … after they killed Robert F. Kennedy
on June 5, 1968.
It’s true that JFK, Jr. was very close to outing George H.W. Bush as the CIA’s point man in Dallas on the day of President Kennedy’s
Assassination. He even named his iconic magazine — GEORGE — after the elder Bush assassin.
Now the world knows why President Kennedy was so determined to “splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces” as his own son
would eventually be murdered by the same rogue elements in The Company, as would his brother be conspiratorially killed
Obama was a neocon, Trump is a neocon. what's new ?
Chinese leaders appeared to be acting on the advice of the 6th century BC philosopher and general Sun Tzu, who wrote in The Art
of War, "there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."
Candidate Trump railed against the invasion of Iraq during his campaign, at one point blaming George W. Bush directly and saying,
"we should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East." As president-elect, Trump continued to promise a very
different foreign policy, one that would "stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be
The election of Donald Trump gave the international community pause: Trump appeared unpredictable, eschewed tradition, and flouted
convention. He might well have followed through on his promise to move the U.S. away from its long embrace of forever war. China's
government in particular must have worried about such a move. If the U.S. focused on its internal problems and instead pursued a
restrained foreign policy that was constructive rather than destructive, it might pose more of an impediment to China's rise to global
But the Chinese need not have worried. With a continued troop presence in Afghanistan and Syria, a looming conflict with Iran,
and even talk of an intervention in Venezuela, Trump is keeping the U.S. on its perpetual wartime footing.
This is good news for Beijing, whose own foreign policy could not be more different. Rather than embracing a reactive and short-sighted
approach that all too often ignores second- and third-order consequences, the Chinese strategy appears cautious and long-ranging.
Its policymakers and technocrats think and plan in terms of decades, not months. And those plans, for now, are focused more on building
This is not to say that China's foreign policy is altruistic-it is certainly not. It is designed to cement China's role as a great
power by ensnaring as many countries as possible in its economic web. China is playing the long game while Washington expends resources
and global political capital on wars it cannot win. America's devotion to intervention is sowing the seeds of its own demise and
China will be the chief beneficiary.
So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
The Department of Justice admitted in a
Friday court filing that the FBI used
more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former
adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller
"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or
intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court
papers submitted Friday.
Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily
redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of
the documents. - Daily Caller
Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele
- a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a
FISA warrant to spy on Page.
The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic
information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential
sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."
Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could
"suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's
targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's
activities." - Daily Caller
Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team
Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed
Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political
veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during
the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half
of that coincided with the 2016 US election.
Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .
In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian
appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and
hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. -
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.
Further down the rabbit hole
Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire
Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of
2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had
Hillary Clinton's emails.
Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked
UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums .
Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt
through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books. (h/t
Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a
conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.
That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew
to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.
It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10,
Also interesting via
Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives
made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."
Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper
on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during
his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."
They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about
his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .
Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources
familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails.
Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. -
Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.
Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest
even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.
Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he
met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.
It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former
British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed
Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. -
A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.
In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according
to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.
"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.
Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on
either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views
"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " -
Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having
partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.
It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele
and Downer notwithstanding.
The "original" so-called intelligence report was a load of BS, I read it, I'm a computer
engineer of over 30 years experience. My opinion is that it was pure BS, "filler" posing as a
report, no evidence presented. Nothingburger. People then seized on it, waved it in the air,
and said, "Here's the proof!". That's a common tactic that's been used over, and over. Here's
the NY Times "correction". Note, after the correction, Hillary continued to spout the
nonsense that 17 agencies all agreed. It was ONLY the FBI, CIA Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (Dan Coats), and the NSA.
The puzzling part is this - since the "blame Russia" story is fake, why does the US
continue to harass and provoke Russia, via Nato, Bolton, Haley? Who's in charge??
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
But what if comes out that they didn't break any law ? They can ask for reparations of
lost money because of sanction and then every sanctioned entity and individual in Russia can
ask for reparations because of bogus charges.
I been waiting for some news on this one. I had heard a while back that Mueller tried to
deny the Russian company the ability to contest the charges with that weak *** "they haven't
been served properly" excuse only to have it rejected by the judge.
I hope this deflates on Mueller and leaves him open to charges by the others who he
alleges conspired to meddle in US elections.
FFS the US meddles in EVERYONE's elections they now kicking and screaming cuz someone
might have setup a troll farm or dispensed some info on Hillary that might not have been true
(can it be?)
This will play out badly for the Mueller team, the judge already hates them and is
disgusted by their tactics.
America is going to soon know the name Nellie Ohr. Americans will also learn she was a
communist sympathizer more connected to Russia than President Trump ever will be who did all
she could to overturn the candidacy and Presidency of President Trump.
Diana West, the author of American Betryal , wrote this at the American Spectator on Nellie
Ohr, who they call "the "dossier" spying scandal's woman in the middle." -
To one side of Ohr, there is the Fusion GPS team, including fellow contractor Christopher
Steele. To the other, there is husband Bruce Ohr, who, until his "dossier"-related demotion,
was No. 4 man at the Department of Justice, and a key contact there for Steele.
As central as Nellie Ohr's placement is, her role in the creation of the "dossier" remains
undefined. For example, the House Intelligence Committee memo on related matters vaguely
tells us that Nellie Ohr was "employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of
opposition research on Trump"; the memo adds that Bruce Ohr "later provided the FBI with all
of his wife's opposition research." Senator Lindsey Graham more sensationally told Fox News
that Nellie Ohr "did the research for Mr. Steele," but details remain scarce.
What's more revealing about Nellie Ohr is what she did before the FBI and DOJ
Russia scandal and the men in her life protecting her involvement in the Russia scandal -
Notably, the "dossier" men in her life have tried to shield Ohr from public scrutiny, even at
professional risk. Her husband, as the Daily Caller News Foundation reports, failed to
disclose his wife's employment with Fusion GPS and seek the appropriate conflict-of-interest
waiver, which may have been an important factor in his demotion from associate deputy
attorney general late last year.
Under Senate and House questioning, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson consistently
failed to disclose Nellie Ohr's existence as one of his firm's paid Russian experts, let
alone that he hired her for the red-hot DNC/Clinton campaign Trump-Russia project.
Even Christopher Steele may have tried to keep Nellie Ohr "under cover." Steele, put forth
as the "dossier" author ever since its January 2017 publication in BuzzFeed , does
not appear to have let on to his many media and political contacts that he had
"dossier"-assistance from at least two fellow Fusion GPS Russian experts, Nellie Ohr and
Edward Baumgartner. Baumgartner, interestingly, was a Russian history major at Vassar in the
1990s when Nellie Ohr taught Russian history there.
We know that Steele was a NeverTrumper but Nellie Ohr was an outright communist
sympathizer. Ohr's PhD thesis provides the support -
Nellie Ohr's Ph.D. thesis is titled "Collective farms and Russian peasant society, 1933-1937:
the stabilization of the kolkhoz order"?
"Kolkhoz" order means "collective farm" order, so Ohr's subtitle refers to the
"stabilization" of the collective farm order. The phrasing alone is suggestive of some
silverish lining after the six million or more people were killed by Stalin's
state-created famine, mass deportations, and general war of "de-kulakization."
In the introduction to her 418-page paper, Ohr sets forth her main arguments, citing many
of "revisionism's" leading figures - J. Arch Getty, Roberta Manning, Gabor Rittersporn,
Speaking "revisionist" lingo, Nellie Ohr turns the millions killed by Stalin into
"excesses," which, in Ohr's words, "sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a
government that had little real control over the country." (Poor Stalin.) She depicts purges
as representing "to some degree a center-periphery conflict in which the 'state-building'
central government tried to bring headstrong local satraps under control."
Here, in full context, are the "revisionist" trends she says her thesis will
Recently, Western historians [i.e., "revisionists"] have been using materials from the
Smolensk archive to back up their arguments that power flowed not only from the top down but
also from the bottom up to some degree; that excesses sometimes represented desperate
measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country; that policies
such as dekulakization and the purges of the later 1930s had some social constituency among
aggrieved groups of poorer peasants; and that the purges represented to some degree a
center-periphery conflict in which the 'state-building' central government tried to bring
headstrong local satraps under control.
In later years, Ohr reviewed several books by "revisionists," and offered her
sympathies for Stalin. Her beliefs are in deep contrast to President Trump, who the American
Spectator says "whether he or anyone else realizes it, is the most instinctively anti-communist
president elected in generations."
The American Spectator next presented not only Ohr's but Special Counsel Mueller's ties to
Russia as well -
As FBI Director (2001-2013), Robert Mueller presided over the Bureau's decade-long
counterintelligence operation known as "Ghost Stories," which targeted the deep-cover ring of
Russian "illegals" mentioned above. In June 2010, the FBI netted this ring of covert Russian
Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) operatives, which was successfully boring into elite
circles, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's - and then sent them packing ASAP to
Why? All of the available evidence
strongly suggests that this painstaking FBI work of a decade was thrown away to protect
Hillary Clinton , the once and future presidential candidate, who was at risk of being
compromised. As FBI counterintelligence chief Frank Figliuzzi put it: "We were becoming very
concerned they were getting close enough to a sitting US cabinet member that we thought we
could no longer allow this to continue."
Never one to save the republic instead of herself, Hillary Clinton "worked feverishly" to
get these Russian agents deported before they could be adequately debriefed or otherwise
exploited, as J. Michael Waller writes. Remember, June 2010 was a busy month for the
Clintons: Rosatom was initiating its purchase of Uranium One; Bill Clinton was pocketing
$500,000 from that KGB-linked Moscow bank, Renaissance Capital, which was "talking up"
Uranium One shares (even as $145 million was sloshing into the Clinton Foundation); President
Obama was pushing for Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, and all the "reset"
rest. The exposure of a highly trained network of SVR operatives targeting Hillary Clinton
among others could not have been more inconvenient. How do you say, "Get them out of
here on the double" in Russian?
Looking back, I don't recall FBI Director Mueller in a lather over this Russian
"meddling," or "influence" on the Obama administration. Last time I looked, he did not resign
from his FBI directorship in protest of this crude administration cover-up, either. Maybe he
was too busy
hiding evidence from Congress of the so-called Mikerin probe, the investigation into a
Russian bribery scheme to control an American uranium trucking firm, even as U.S. lawmakers
were examining the proposed sale of Uranium One to the Russian government.
Thus, in FBI Director Mueller's treatment of the Russian espionage ring in we see a
funhouse-mirror-image of Special Counsel Mueller's Russian social media indictments. In 2010,
without a single indictment or anything comparable, Mueller's FBI did its part in deporting
from American soil a network of high-value SVR operatives for political reasons; in 2018,
without any expectation of prosecution, Mueller's Special Counsel office indicted a network
of Russian Internet hooligans on Russian soil, also for political reasons.
In both cases, it is our national security that suffers while Mueller's political masters
benefit. In 2010, they wanted Obama-Clinton protected from real Russian exposure; in 2018
they want Trump destroyed by concocted Russian exposure.
Enter the "dossier."
Earlier this month, the Hill reported that "an FBI informant connected to the
Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees... that Moscow routed millions of
dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton's charitable
efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a 'reset' in U.S.-Russian
Even if the information-warriors in the MSM won't call it "Russian influence," let's not
kid ourselves: Putin's Russia got what it paid for, from those infamous U.S. uranium stocks,
to Obama's "flexibility," to
hypersonic missile engine technology , to WTO membership and more, all despite that
latter-Obama-second-term chill - in itself a political zig-zag with historically suspicious
Then, improbably, along came Trump, and neither Republican nor Democrat could stop him.
When Smash-Mouth Hillary tried to tag him Putin's "puppet" during the final presidential
debate in October 2016, it was an act of desperation, and, perhaps, her own "insurance
policy" for the unthinkable - defeat.
Even as Clinton spoke on the debate stage, Nellie "Terror and Excitement" Ohr was still
laboring in the Fusion GPS Russia shop (working her ham radio?), which was still whipping up
the final installments of DNC/Clinton "opposition research," including the "dossier," to back
up Clinton's wild, Pravda -esque charge.
It didn't stick, of course, not in time to vault Clinton over the Election Day finish line
What a sigh of relief Putin must have drawn inside his palace on November 8, 2016 now that
he finally had a "puppet" to call his own inside the White House; someone who, in addition to
his counter-revolutionary "America First" agenda to restore U.S. manufacturing, prosperity
and sovereignty (joy of Kremlin joys,) strongly believed the U.S. military was "depleted" and
dangerously behind Russia's... someone who, after so many years of neglect, wanted to
modernize and expand, not shrink and mothball, America's nuclear arsenal... Phew! What a
relief! Putin almost had to face a "real" neo-Cold Warrior who wanted to follow and
accelerate Obama's military decline, someone who said on the campaign trail that "the last
thing we need" are next-generation nuclear-armed cruise missiles....
Clearly this last paragraph is satire as the Russians wanted Hillary elected and
were happy to do all they could to prevent a Trump Presidency. The links between Russia and
Nellie Ohr are unknown. The dossier she helped create is a farce.
What we do know is that mean spirited communist sympathizer Nellie Ohr, whose husband helped
run the corrupt DOJ, was involved in slandering candidate Donald Trump and did all she could to
stop him from being President.
"Made up a crime to fit the facts they have" is a normal mode of operation for federal
prosecutors. Hopefully the judge throws out all charges, but unlikely to have a broader
impact on non-stop fabrications by US attorneys.
What this accusation boils down to is saying that the Russian firm's deception is "proof"
that they thought they were violating US law, and that this intention to break a non-existent
law constitutes a framework under which they can be convicted of breaking a non-existent law.
The crazy never stops. Mueller and his minions should be disbarred.
By participation, do they mean like polls that consistently show the USA as the greatest
impediment to global peace and tranquility? Or the numerous opinion sharers that the US
government is depraved? Or like the kind of participation of Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland?
Or like the Western sponsored Jihadi headchoppers hired to interfere in Syrian elections? Or
like the US military fueled aggression against Yemeni sovereignty? Or like the US/Clinton
sponsored destabilization of Libyan democracy? Or like the Obama/US sponsored destabilization
of Egypt? Or like the US/Western sponsored failed coup in Turkey?
Or most crucially, the US/neoconservative never ending direct interference in internal
These need to be clarified so folks can understand what meddling/interference/intervention
means. It's not enough to point fingers, when worse activities have been, are being carried
out by the pointers. Any society that abandons basic ethics, is one destined for the scrap
heap of history.
Americans have forgotten what it means to be Americans, and this desperate gambit by the
DOJ highlights viscerally, that the American system of government, one based on ethical
values, is no more! It demonstrates the fragility of the system.
God alone knows if salvage is possible now, the USA has in the blink of an eye, become the
erstwhile USSR, overly sensitive to the unworkability of its sociopolitical system. It is the
end game of unsustainable imperium.
"Rather, the allegation is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that
precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether they had broken the
Bloomberg " I didn't know Prof. Irwin Corey worked for the US Attorney's office. By this
explanation whether you break a law or not you can be guilty of precluding these agencies
from determining that you did not break a law, even if whatever you did to prevent such
determination was not illegal.
didn't the Judge in Manaforts trial do something similar when he called out the Mueller
team on their motivation's for bringing Manafort up on old charges the DOJ had previously
declined to prosecute him on?
LOL, Mueller's investigation is fucked. Indeed, they are going to have to bring forth the
evidence via discovery.
It will come to light they manufactured a crime without the evidence. Also, if they don't
drop the case they're running the risk of exposing even more crimes they committed.
This is where the American people should rise up and repeal prosecutorial immunity and
make the real criminal's pay the price for manufacturing crime's! Care to speculate how many
prosecutor's wouldn't even touch a potential criminal with doubt of innocence, if indeed
prosecutors were held accountable for their own crimes???
Like I've said, people have NO idea how raunchy and corrupt this manufactured Mueller
investigation is, once the unredacted FISA warrant and 302's are released, the people will
realize both the seditious and traitorous behavior that went on in the ObamaSpy ring to frame
A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims lodged against
a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for
election meddling, surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges. Mueller's team
tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served, however Judge Dabney Friedrich
denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors '
they're here .'
Concord was accused in the indictment of supporting the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian 'troll farm' accused of trying
to influence the 2016 US election.
On Thursday, Judge Freidrich asked Mueller's prosecutors if she should assume they aren't accusing Concord of violating US laws
applicable to election expenditures and failure to register as a foreign agent.
Concord has asked Dabney to throw out the charges - claiming that Mueller's office fabricated a crime, and that there is no law
against interfering in elections.
According to the judge's request for clarification, the
Justice Department has argued that it doesn't have to
show that Concord had a legal duty to report its expenditures to the
Federal Election Commission . Rather, the allegation
is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether
they had broken the law. -
On Monday, Friedrich raised questions over whether the special counsel's office could prove a key element of their case - saying
that it was "hard to see" how allegations of Russian influence were intended to interfere with US government operations vs. simply
"confusing voters," reports
During a 90-minute hearing, Friedrich questioned prosecutor Jonathan Kravis about how the government would be able to show
the Russian defendants were aware of the Justice Department and FEC's functions and then deliberately sought to skirt them.
" You still have to show knowledge of the agencies and what they do. How do you do that? " Friedrich asked.
Kravis, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, argued that the government needed only to
show that Concord Management and the other defendants were generally aware that the U.S. government "regulates and monitors" foreign
participation in American politics . That awareness, Kravis said, could be inferred from the Russians' alleged creation of fake
social media accounts that appeared to be run by U.S. citizens and "computer infrastructure" intended to mask the Russian origin
of the influence operation.
" That is deception that is directed at a higher level ," Kravis said. Kravis appeared in court with
Michael Dreeben , a top Justice Department appellate lawyer on detail to the special counsel's office. -
Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling
charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."
"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged
a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."
Dubelier added that the case against Concord Management is the first in US history "where anyone has ever been charged with defrauding
the Justice Department" through their failure to register under FARA .
In the latest indication of the Trump administration's efforts to root out alleged leakers,
a senior Treasury Department official working in the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FINCEN), Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards,
has been charged with leaking confidential financial reports to the media concerning former
Trump campaign advisers Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, according to
The Hill .
Prosecutors say that Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards , a senior adviser to FinCEN,
photographed what are called suspicious activity reports, or SARs, and other sensitive
government files and sent them to an unnamed reporter, in violation of U.S. law. -
Suspicious Activity Reports are filed by banks in order to confidentially notify law
enforcement of potentially illegal financial transactions. The documents leaked by the Treasury
official, which began last October, are reported to have been used as the basis for 12 news
articles published by an unnamed organization.
While the news organization was not named in the complaint, it lists the headlines and other
details of six BuzzFeed articles published between October 2017 to as recently as Monday which
they allege were based on the leaks.
BuzzFeed reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier are commonly listed on several of the
articles referenced in the government's complaint. (examples
Edwards has been charged with one count of unauthorized disclosures of SAR reports and one
count of conspiracy to make unauthorized disclousres of SARs. She will be tried in the Southern
District of New York, and faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted on both charges.
When she was arrested, Edwards was in possession of a flash drive which was allegedly used
to save the unlawfully disclosed SARs, as well as a cell phone " containing numerous
communications over an encrypted application in which she transmitted SARs and other sensitive
government information to Reporter-1."
"We hope today's charges remind those in positions of trust within government agencies that
the unlawful sharing of sensitive documents will not be tolerated and will be met with swift
justice by this Office," said US Attorney Geoffrey Berman in a statement.
According to the criminal complaint, agents in the Treasury inspector general's office
detected "a pattern" of unauthorized media disclosures of the sensitive financial files
beginning in October 2017 and continuing for a year . The disclosures were related to matters
being investigated either by special counsel Robert Mueller , the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York or the Justice Department's National Security
They included leaks about suspicious transactions made by Manafort, Trump's former
campaign chairman, and Gates, Manafort's longtime business partner who also served on the
Trump campaign and the transition team. Both individuals were charged in connection with
Mueller's Russia investigation last October with crimes stemming from their foreign lobbying
activity. Both have since decided to plead guilty and cooperate with Mueller's probe. -
Could Manafort now make the case that unauthorized media leaks saturating national headlines
baised the jury against him?
Edwards is also accused of leaking sensitive financial information regarding Russian
national, Maria Butina, who was charged with acting as an unregistered agent of the Russian
The alleged leak announced Wednesday would be the second major suspected breach at FinCEN
reported this year, after a federal law enforcement official told The New Yorker in May that
he leaked SARs on a shell company set up by Michael Cohen , Trump's former attorney,
after two similar bank records appeared to be missing from the FinCEN database. -
Edwards is also accused of sending the reproter internal FinCEN emails, investigative memos
and intelligence assessments
The truth is that Trump foreign policy was neocon from April 2017 -- first Tomahawk style in Syria. Trump is just yet another
neocon, a huge disappointment for people who voted for him in a hope that he might change the US foreign policy and stop foreign
The president's equivocating remarks over the defense secretary show that Bolton and
Pompeo are indeed winning.
President Trump with Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, Defense Secretary
Jim Mattis and National Security Advisor John Bolton Credit:NATO/Flickr In covering President
Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, The Wall Street
Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at the president's foreign
policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the president described
Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested he wouldn't be
surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good guy" and saying
the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody
leaves . That's Washington."
Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in
return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors,
reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60
Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this
might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired.
It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary
inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.
But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence
embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that
Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But
his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the
arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as
secretary of state."
The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy
establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward
expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through
ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly
endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the
world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the
general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.
Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and
avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush
administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed
to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass
destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's
aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not
depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he
specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.
The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his
attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican
opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their
first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to
Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis
crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment
outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of
that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He
supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO
Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might
have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss.
But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is
cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more
unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal
prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances
that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some
military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and
China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.
He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the
previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the
campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong
philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's
eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion
of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status
could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as
aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not
the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it
on the basis of little knowledge.
That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy
and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to
bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never
wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North
Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has
waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.
Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration
arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's
standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose
views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the
president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of
Democrats than his own."
The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and
Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious
manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a
discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of
Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.
United States District Judge S. James Otero issued an order and ruling today dismissing
Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against President Trump. The ruling also states that the
President is entitled to an award of his attorneys' fees against Stormy Daniels. A copy of
the ruling is attached. No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr.
Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for
President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels. The amount of the award for President
Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date.
Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti responded to the dismissal, tweeting: "We will appeal the
dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal," while stating
that Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen "proceed unaffected."
Re Judge's limited ruling: Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed
unaffected. Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration
We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a
Last week Trump's legal team argued that it made no sense for them to keep fighting in court
over a $130,000 hush payment received by Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, as she
invalidated the non-disclosure agreement she signed with Trump's longtime fixer and lawyer,
The lawsuit is moot because Trump has consented that the agreement, as she has claimed,
was never formed because he didn't sign it and he has agreed not to try to enforce it, Trump
said in his court filing. The company created by Cohen to facilitate the non-disclosure
agreement, which initially said Clifford faced more than $20 million in damages for talking,
said in September that it wouldn't sue to enforce the deal. -
Michael Avenatti's terrible October
This month has not treated Stormy's attorney well. Michael Avenatti went from Democrat
darling during his representation of Daniels, to scapegoat over Justice Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court after he introduced an 11th hour claim by a woman who said
Kavanaugh orchestrated gang-rape parties in the early 1980s - an allegation thought by many to
have derailed otherwise legitimate claims against the Judge.
Less than two weeks later Avenatti came under fire after he launched a now-deleted
fundraising page for Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke.
In the fine print, O'Rourke supporters discovered that half the proceeds went to Avenatti's
Fight PAC , which he formed a little over
seven weeks ago .
Avenatti called the criticism "complete nonsense," noting that Senators Elizabeth Warren and
Kamala Harris "do the same thing." Perhaps sensing he'd made a huge mistake, Avenatti deleted
the page - telling the Daily Beast in a text message: "It wasn't worth the nonsense that
resulted from people that don't understand how common this is."
The question now is; after three strikes, is Avenatti out?
The best thing about Avenatti and the Clintons is that they won't stop until they bring
the entire Democratic Party down. It reminds me of Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer,
scumbags who keep coming back and discredit the entire party because of their own glorious
"... Not sure about that, as at least 2 crucial allies, the UK and Australia, were pressured by the Obama and Hillary camps to set this whole narrative off...and therefore does he seriously damage those international and key security countries with info or does he compromise to keep the peace? ..."
"... I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.... That's that the UK's GCHQ initiated spying on Popadolous and Trump Tower at the request of Obummer and/or Rice and/or Brennan, BEFORE the FBI/Comey said UNDER OATH that they started in May, and were denied a FISA warrant in June 2016.... that's why they needed the 'golden shower dossier.' ..."
Some say that declassifying the documents would expose " sources and methods ".
Others say that the documents are being kept secret to prevent the DOJ and FBI from becoming
embarrassed . I say that both can be true.
If the documents expose the liars and fabrications that went into the entire Russia Gate
fraud, then declassifying the documents will indeed embarrass the DOJ and FBI by
showing that their " sources " are liars and that their " methods " are
Either Trump is constantly threatened, boxed into a corner, or it IS ALL FOR SHOW!
The best example is now, Trump "walking back the release" because of Aussie and UK
complicity. The threatened release of USA dirty laundry, of which there is plenty knowing how
our CIA works. Or we are being played once more.
Frankly, I'm beyond sick of these walk backs! IG report! Rosenstein resigns! FISA
I'm an independent voter. It's high time I WALK BACK my vote for all Republicans on
November 6th UNLESS WE THE People that they represent get a FULL UNREDACTED FISA AND IG
REPORT published .
Tell Trump and the Republican party . Protect NOT ONE Criminal. If UK or Aus threaten
exposing spies or military secrets then threaten back with annihilation should they endanger
I'm fed up beyond return with Holder, Brennan et al.
Obama, Hillary and the DNC pressured the UK's M16 as the No.1 instigator via Steele, its
lapdog Australia's intelligence service, then told Alexander Downer to forward "salted" info
to US agencies...and 2.5 years later here we are
It's always something that causes The Never Ending Wait..
and it always makes decent sense in the short term (memory loss)..
and it always; and for years now, happens.
I can't buy that those involved are powerful, savvy, or more importantly, courageous
enough to finally stand the hell UP to the powers that be bullshitting the Citizenry. It's
clearly not the case.
And what does Sundance say of the MIA Sessions? Is he really wearing tights and cape under
those rumpled wee suits of his, and just snarling to leap out, indictments in hand, to read
off tens of thousands of the accused' names? "Stealth Jeff"; actor par excellence? Sessions
as Hero? Any day now to be proved The Truth's Hitman?
A GOP-won Midterms would benefit from the declassification of criminal intent that
supports the US President. -> Before the vote. Afterward, and if the vote gone badly, lol
it'll be as useful as John Brennan's soul. And a "Mueller surprise"; if the declassification
happened before the vote, would be tainted beyond its .. surprise.
So why the wait this time - again?
I'm sorry; I don't mean to come across rudely, but "hoping; forever" is exhausting,
damaging to fact based living, induces apathy and entirely suits those who have so much to
hide, and offers nothing to the targets involved; We, the People.
The factions in the FBI/DOJ who want to keep the Russian collusion hoax going are the same
ones who protected Hillary from the most outrageous violation of the espionage laws ever to
bubble to the surface. Office politics in that axis are a lot like any other large company,
with the exception of sending people to prison. So her supporters are still on the job.
The investigation never made first page news, living out here in the alternate press, and
now that The Donald seems to walk back obvious Donaldesque moves, it might never come to
light. Remember his campaign promise was to prosecute Sec. Clinton, and he settled for firing
Comey. So they may get away with most of this yet.
Any time the US government cooperates with the British, we get stuck. The Austrailians are
colonials and love it. So the paperwork for the Comey-McCabe-Rosenstien conspiracy might
never be published.
When the FBI wants a warrant, its presumed that they are not going to make an even-handed
case to the FISA Court. All they have to do is deny that they had sufficient infomation to
the contrary. Thats what makes this court an abomination to our freedom. This is why the US
Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act are a bunch of crap. We are now finding out that
intelligence services knew who concocted 911 (elements within the Saudi Govt along side the
wealthy dissident near-royals ie. the Khashoggis and the Bin-Ladens, and possibly the
Israelis knew too).
Everyone, none of this matters. Has everyone forgotten about 9/11 and the conspiracy
perpetrated on the American people. Frankly all is not what it seems and most of what we are
seeing is simply theatre for the masses.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture,
are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle,
so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above
their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
~ Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924), 28th President of the United States
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people
inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret
proceedings...Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are
advancing around the globe...no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are
awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has
never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent...For we are opposed
around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert
means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on
subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by
night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material
resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines
military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its
preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its
dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no
secret is revealed."
― President John F. Kennedy
Anyone else worried that the President keeps doing an about face or being unable or
unwilling to deliver on important issues? Orders papers to be published unredacted then they are not? Hillary walking free. No Wall,
no withdrawal from Afghanistan and now backtracking on punishing Saudi Arabia....
" and now backtracking on punishing Saudi Arabia.."
And you think the Russian's really poisoned the Skripals, or that Assad merrily gassed his
own people just before entering peace talks, or that the White Helmet people being invited
into Canada are not Al Nusra terrorists?
You had better be prepared to believe all that if you think the Saudis are stupid enough
to dismember a Washington Post journalist in a Saudi consulate, and to let it be recorded to
boot. How dumb can you get? But then, maybe I misjudge you. Maybe you do believe all that. Not me, pal.
PS For extra confirmation, just look at who has decided not to attend Davos in the Desert.
Top of the list are the New Yawk banksters.
You want to might ask yourself why the Post ran this story, employed the journalist and
published that John Brennan demand that we "punish" Saudi Arabia. You might ask yourself why the NYT pushed the narrative that RR should be fired before
i watched a documentary about that. basically, binney was genius who created a genius
system to find terrorists while maintaining the integrity of the constitution (and for
relatively cheap cost!). The deep state was like "piss on that," spent 100x more money than
they had to, and wiped their *** with the constitution.
dont forget that the FBI fabricated evidence about Binney and three of his colleagues.The
criminal case against Binney and his colleagues was then thrown out of court once the
fabrication was revealed. This out of control corruption has been going on a long time...
I've stated for months that rank and file are in the tank w/leadership corruption OR they
have been threatened either with harm to themselves of family members if they didn't go
along. However at this point, no whistleblowers proves the former.
Strzok testifed several CDs of ALL 680K emails that included crimes against children,
classified info was handed over to Comey who merely placed them in his office. Comey has been
gone for over six months, why have those CDs not been reviewed and acted on?
There are a LOT of dots and THEY count on YOU not connecting them. I keep a journal.
Lets suppose its all true. Which we pretty much know if you have been paying attention
that the FBI has gone rogue. Then what? Arrests? Mueller? I don't think that's even close to
what is needed. We are talking major treason from multiple levels and people through out
" the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked
him to keep them classified. "
refers to the British and Australian governments who would be embarassed because rogue
agents wishing to arrange for the impeachment of Trump would be exposed.
as such, this would represent a threat to the apolitical use of five eyes security pact
for intelligence purposes - a pact intended to detect and prevent EXTERNAL threats to the
five eyes nations - rather than instigate POLITICAL control of INTERNAL affairs of the
democratic functioning of five eyes countries.
treason and sedition has been exposed within the US - aided and abetted by drunks and
sycophants in britain and australia,
In my humble opinion, politicians and government bureaucrats should be strictly prohibited
from falsely accusing their ideological opponents of criminal activity and then manufacturing
fake evidence to support those claims.
No amount of sanctimonious political-correctness justifies Authoritarian rule squarely in
opposition to the US Constitution.
Not sure about that, as at least 2 crucial allies, the UK and Australia, were pressured by
the Obama and Hillary camps to set this whole narrative off...and therefore does he seriously
damage those international and key security countries with info or does he compromise to keep
the peace? Too much is at play here for Trump expose the truth
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.... That's that the UK's GCHQ initiated spying on
Popadolous and Trump Tower at the request of Obummer and/or Rice and/or Brennan, BEFORE the
FBI/Comey said UNDER OATH that they started in May, and were denied a FISA warrant in June
2016.... that's why they needed the 'golden shower dossier.' That's i-l-l-e-g-a-l.
Oh, and Brennan said he pushed the FBI to initiate an investigation but Nunes said there
was no intelligence (EC) which they could base it on. It was a set-up from day 1.
The vast regime of
torture created by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks
continues to haunt
The political class and most of the media have never dealt honestly with the
profound constitutional corruption that such practices inflicted. Instead, torture enablers are
permitted to pirouette as heroic figures on the flimsiest evidence.
Former FBI chief James Comey is the latest beneficiary of the media's "no fault" scoring
on the torture scandal.
In his media interviews for his new memoir,
A Higher Loyalty:
Truth, Lies, and Leadership
, Comey is portraying himself as a Boy Scout who sought only to do
good things. But his record is far more damning than most Americans realize.
Comey continues to use memos from his earlier government gigs to whitewash all of the
abuses he sanctified.
"Here I stand; I can do no other," Comey told George W. Bush in 2004
when Bush pressured Comey, who was then Deputy Attorney General, to approve an unlawful
anti-terrorist policy. Comey was quoting a line supposedly uttered by Martin Luther in 1521, when
he told Emperor Charles V and an assembly of Church officials that he would not recant his sweeping
criticisms of the Catholic Church.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations did excellent
reports prior to Comey's becoming FBI chief that laid out his role in the torture scandal. Such
hard facts, however, have long since vanished from the media radar screen.
Chris Matthews recently declared, "James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He
was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, in
a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers such as Comey, declared,
"The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful.
Comey believed they were not .
So Comey pushed back as much as he could.
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the scandalous religious
practices of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker, found a safer way to oppose
the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values:
he approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the
Comey became deputy attorney general in late 2003 and "had oversight of the legal
justification used to authorize" key Bush programs in the war on terror,
as a Bloomberg
News analysis noted. At that time, the Bush White House was pushing the Justice Department to again
sign off on an array of extreme practices that had begun shortly after the 9/11 attacks. A 2002
Justice Department memo had leaked out that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be
unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct
a military campaign." The same Justice Department policy spurred a secret 2003 Pentagon document on
interrogation policies that openly encouraged contempt for the law: "Sometimes the greater good for
society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law."
Photos had also leaked from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing the stacking of naked
prisoners with bags over their heads, mock electrocution from a wire connected to a man's penis,
guard dogs on the verge of ripping into naked men, and grinning U.S. male and female soldiers
celebrating the sordid degradation.
Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh
published extracts in the New Yorker from a March 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba that
catalogued other U.S. interrogation abuses: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric
liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle
and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with
threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."
The Bush administration responded to the revelations with a torrent of falsehoods,
complemented by attacks on the character of critics.
Bush declared, "Let me make very
clear the position of my government and our country . The values of this country are such that
torture is not a part of our soul and our being." Bush had the audacity to run for reelection as
the anti-torture candidate, boasting that "for decades, Saddam tormented and tortured the people of
Iraq. Because we acted, Iraq is free and a sovereign nation." He was hammering this theme despite a
confidential CIA Inspector General report warning that post–9/11 CIA interrogation methods might
violate the international Convention Against Torture.
James Comey had the opportunity to condemn the outrageous practices and pledge that the
Justice Department would cease providing the color of law to medieval-era abuses. Instead, Comey
merely repudiated the controversial 2002 memo.
Speaking to the media in a
not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004, he declared that the 2002 memo was "overbroad,"
"abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary." He helped oversee crafting a new memo with
different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
Comey twice gave explicit approval for waterboarding
, which sought to break
detainees with near-drowning. This practice had been recognized as a war crime by the U.S.
government since the Spanish-American War. A practice that was notorious when inflicted by the
Spanish Inquisition was adopted by the CIA with the Justice Department's blessing. (When Barack
Obama nominated Comey to be FBI chief in 2013, he testified that he had belatedly recognized that
waterboarding was actually torture.)
Comey wrote in his memoir that he was losing sleep over concern about
Bush-administration torture polices. But losing sleep was not an option for detainees, because
Comey approved sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique.
Detainees could be
forcibly kept awake for 180 hours until they confessed their crimes. How did that work? At Abu
Ghraib, one FBI agent reported seeing a detainee "handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his
head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake."
Numerous FBI agents protested the extreme interrogation methods they saw at Guantanamo and
elsewhere, but their warnings were ignored.
Comey also approved "wall slamming"
-- which, as law professor David Cole wrote,
meant that detainees could be thrown against a wall up to 30 times. Comey also signed off on the
CIA's using "interrogation" methods such as facial slaps, locking detainees in small boxes for 18
hours, and forced nudity. When the secret Comey memo approving those methods finally became public
in 2009, many Americans were aghast -- and relieved that the Obama administration had repudiated
When it came to opposing torture, Comey's version of "Here I stand" had more loopholes
than a reverse-mortgage contract.
Though Comey in 2005 approved each of 13 controversial
extreme interrogation methods, he objected to combining multiple methods on one detainee.
The Torture Guy
In his memoir, Comey relates that his wife told him,
"Don't be the torture guy!"
Comey apparently feels that he satisfied her dictate by writing memos that opposed
combining multiple extreme interrogation methods. And since the vast majority of the American media
agree with him, he must be right.
Comey's cheerleaders seem uninterested in the damning evidence that has surfaced since
his time as a torture enabler in the Bush administration.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence
Committee finally released a massive report on the CIA torture regime -- including death resulting
from hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods
on broken legs, and dozens of cases where innocent people were pointlessly brutalized.
Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of
prisoners. From the start, the program was protected by phalanxes of lying federal officials.
When he first campaigned for president, Barack Obama pledged to vigorously investigate the Bush
torture regime for criminal violations. Instead, the Obama administration proffered one excuse
after another to suppress the vast majority of the evidence, pardon all U.S. government torturers,
and throttle all torture-related lawsuits. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture
scandal was courageous whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou's fate illustrates that telling the
truth is treated as the most unforgivable atrocity in Washington.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to
abhor, he would deserve some of the praise he is now receiving.
Instead, he remained in
the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that "it was my
job to protect the department and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this
because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted that Comey and two colleagues "have
largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to confer
When Comey finally exited the Justice Department in August 2005 to become a lavishly paid senior
vice president for Lockheed Martin, he proclaimed in a farewell speech that protecting the Justice
Department's "reservoir" of "trust and credibility" requires "vigilance" and "an unerring
commitment to truth." But he had perpetuated policies that shattered the moral credibility of both
the Justice Department and the U.S. government. He failed to heed Martin Luther's admonition, "You
are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say."
Comey is likely to go to his grave without paying any price for his role in
perpetuating appalling U.S. government abuses.
It is far more important to recognize
the profound danger that torture and the exoneration of torturers pose to the United States. "No
free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of the law," is one of the mottoes
chiseled into the façade of Justice Department headquarters. Unfortunately, politicians nowadays
can choose which laws they obey and which laws they trample.
And Americans are supposed
to presume that we still have the rule of law as long as politicians and bureaucrats deny their
Comey was the hand-picked schlub that was placed in a position of
power to be a firewall... Nothing more and he has been rewarded
handsomely for playing this role... One can only hope that one day he
becomes a liability to his handlers and that there is a pack of
hungry, wild dogs that will rips him apart... Hopefully on PPV...
The Absolute, Complete,
Open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness began.
Unabated. Like a malignant Cancer.
Growing to Gargantuan proportions.
Irrefutable proof of the absolute, complete, open Lawlessness by
the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC., its CEO & Board of
1. Torture .
2. WMD lie to the American People.
3. Lying the American People into War.
4. Illegal Wars of Aggression.
5. Arming, funding & training of terror organizations by the State
Dept. / CIA & members of CONgress.
7. McCain meets with ISIS (Pics available).
8. Clapper lies to CONgress.
9. Brennan lies to CONgress & taps Congressional phones / computers.
10. Lynch meets Clinton on tarmac.
11. Fast & Furious deals with the Sinaloa Cartel.
12. Holder in Contempt of CONgress.
13. CIA drug / gun running / money laundering through the tax payer
bailed out TBTFB.
14. Illegal NSA Spying on the American People.
15. DNC Federal Election Crime / Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
16. Hillary Clinton email Treason.
17. Clinton Foundation pay to play RICO.
18. Anthony Weiner 650,000 #PizzaGate Pedo Crimes.
19. Secret Iran deal.
20. Lynch takes the Fifth when asked about Iran deal
21. FBI murders LaVoy Finicum
At the current moment we're completely Lawless.
We have been for quite some time. In the past, their Criminality
was "Hidden in plain view."
Now it's out in the open, in your face Criminality & Lawlessness.
Thing is, the bar & precedent has been set so high among these
Criminals I doubt we will ever see another person arrested in our
Comey thinks he is above the law. He and his associates feel they are
not bound by the rules and laws of the US, they are the ELITE. Comey
should go to JAIL, HARD CORE not Country Club, along with his
associates, Yates, Rosenstein, Brennan, McCabe, Stzrock, Paige and
etc. Lock him up
Bit by bit, slowly (far too slowly) the story comes out . A DNC/FBI/CIA conspiracy to
discredit Trump. I just read Shattered
where it is stated that the Russia story was invented as the excuse for failure: but the book
establishes that defeat was the consequence of never being able to articulate a reason to vote
for her, a disorganized campaign and not observing the dissatisfaction that Sanders and Trump
(and Bill Clinton) perceived. The Russia stuff is 1) a distraction from failure, 2) a hook on
which to hang Trump and 3) propaganda for the "Mackinder war".
adopted false US personas online to get
people to attend rallies and conduct other political activities. (An alternative explanation is
that IRA is a purely commercial, and not political, operation.)
Whether those efforts even came close to swaying US voters in the 2016 presidential
election, as Shane and Mazzetti claimed, is another matter.
Shane and Mazzetti might argue that they are merely citing figures published by the social
media giants Facebook and Twitter, but they systematically failed to report the detailed
explanations behind the gross figures used in each case, which falsified their
Their most dramatic assertions came in reporting the alleged results of the IRA's efforts on
Facebook. "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media," they wrote, "the reach of their
effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate
images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook
Then, to dramatize that "eventual audience" figure, they observed, "That was not far short
of the 137 million people who would vote in the 2016 presidential elections."
But as impressive as these figures may appear at first glance, they don't really indicate an
effective attack on the US election process at all. In fact, without deeper inquiry into their
meaning, those figures were grossly misleading.
A Theoretical Possibility
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch actually said in testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last October was quite different from what the Times reporters
claimed. "Our best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served
one of these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established accomplishment.
Facebook was saying that it estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at
least one story from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period but over 194 weeks
during the two years 2015 through 2017. That, figure, in turn, was based on the estimate that
29 million people might have gotten at least one story in their Facebook feed over that same
two-year period and on the assumption that they shared it with others at a particular rate.
The first problem with citing those figures as evidence of impact on the 2016 election is
that Facebook did not claim that all or even most of those 80,000 IRA posts were
election–related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million
people was, in fact, election-related. But Stretch did testify that IRA content over that
two–year period represented just four thousandths (.0004) of the total content of
Thus each piece of IRA content in a twitter feed was engulfed in 23,000 pieces of non-IRA
That is an extremely important finding, because, as Facebook's Vice President for News Feed,
acknowledged in 2016 , Facebook subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the
stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories
that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually read.
Facebook did conduct research on what it calls "civic engagement" during the election
period, and the researchers concluded
that the "reach" of the content shared by what they called "fake amplifiers" was "marginal
compared to the volume of civic content shared during the US elections." That reach, they said,
was "statistically very small" in relation to "overall engagement on political issues."
Shane and Mazzaetti thus failed to report any of the several significant caveats and
disclaimers from Facebook itself that make their claim that Russian election propaganda
"reached" 126 million Americans extremely misleading.
Tiny IRA Twitter Footprint
Shane and Mazzetti's treatment of the role of Twitter in the alleged Russian involvement in
the election focuses on 3,814 Twitter accounts said to be associated with the IRA, which
supposedly "interacted with 1.4 million Americans." Although that number looks impressive
without any further explanation, more disaggregated data provide a different picture: more than
90 percent of the Tweets from the IRA had nothing to do with the election, and those that did
were infinitesimally few in relation to the entire Twitter stream relating to the 2016
own figures show that those 3,814 IRA-linked accounts posted 175,993 Tweets during the ten
weeks of the election campaign, but that only 8.4 percent of the total number of IRA-generated
Tweets were election-related.
Twitter estimated that those 15,000 IRA-related tweets represented less than .00008 (eight
one hundred thousandths) of the estimated total of 189 million tweets that Twitter identified
as election-related during the ten-week election campaign. Twitter has offered no estimate of
how many Tweets, on average were in the daily twitter stream of those people notified by
Twitter and what percentage of them were election-related Tweets from the IRA. Any such
notification would certainly show, however, that the percentage was extremely small and that
very few would have been read.
Research by Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren of Clemson University on 2.9 million Tweets
from those same 3,814 IRA accounts over a two year period has
revealed that nearly a third of its Tweets had normal commercial content or were not in
English; another third were straight local newsfeeds from US localities or mostly non-political
"hashtag games", and the final third were on "right" or "left" populist themes in US
Furthermore, there were more IRA Tweets on political themes in 2017 than there had been
during the election year. As a graph of those tweets over time shows,
those "right" and "left" Tweets peaked not during the election but during the summer of
The Mysterious 50,000 'Russia-Linked' Accounts
Twitter also determined
that another 50,258 automated Twitter accounts that tweeted about the election were associated
with Russia and that they have generated a total to 2.1 million Tweets – about one
percent of the total number election-related tweets of during the period.
But despite media coverage of those Tweets suggesting that they originated with the Russian
government, the evidence doesn't indicate that at all. Twitter's Sean Edgett told
the Senate Intelligence Committee last November that Twitter had used an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account". Twitter considered an account
to be "Russian" if any of the following was found: it was created in Russia or if the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email; the user's display name
contains Cyrillic characters; the user frequently Tweets in Russian, or the user has logged in
from any Russian IP address.
in a statement in January, however, that there were limitations on its ability to determine
the origins of the users of these accounts. And a past log-in from a Russian IP address does
not mean the Russian government controls an account. Automated accounts have bought and sold
for many years on a huge market, some of which is located in Russia. As Scott Shane reported
in September 2017, a Russian website BuyAccs.com offers tens and even hundreds of thousands
of Twitter accounts for bulk purchase.
Twitter also observed that "a high concentration of automated engagement and content
originated from data centers and users accessing Twitter via Virtual Private Networks ("VPNs")
and proxy servers," which served to mask the geographical origin of the tweet. And that
practice was not limited to the 50,000 accounts in question. Twitter found that locations of
nearly 12 percent of the Tweets generated during the election period were masked because of use
of such networks and servers.
Twitter identified over half of the Tweets, coming from about half of the 50,000 accounts as
being automated, and the data reported on activity on those 50,000 accounts in question
indicates that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were using the automated accounts in
question. The roughly 23,000 automated accounts were the source of 1.34 million Tweets, which
represented .63 percent of the total election-related Tweets. But the entire 50,000 accounts
produced about 1 percent of total election-related tweets.
Hillary Clinton got .55 percent of her total retweets from the 50,000 automated accounts
Twitter calls "Russia-linked" and .62 percent of her "likes" from them. Those percentages are
close to the percentage of total election-related Tweets generated by those same automated
accounts. That suggests that her campaign had roughly the same proportion of automated accounts
among the 50,000 accounts as it did in the rest of the accounts during the campaign.
Trump, on the other hand, got 1.8 percent of this total "likes" and 4.25 percent of his
total Retweets for the whole election period from those accounts, indicating his campaign was
more invested in the automated accounts that were the source of two-thirds of the Tweets in
those 50,000 "Russia-linked" accounts.
The idea promoted by Shane and Mazzetti that the Russian government seriously threatened to
determine the winner of the election does not hold up when the larger social media context is
examined more closely. Contrary to what the Times' reporters and the corporate media in
general would have us believe, the Russian private sector effort accounted for a minuscule
proportion of the election-related output of social media. The threat to the US political
system in general and its electoral system in particular is not Russian influence; it's in part
a mainstream news media that has lost perspective on the truth.
Rosenstein said he was joking when he made the comments to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and FBI attorney Lisa Page, however that claim has been refuted by the FBI's former top
"We have many questions for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and expect answers to those
questions. There is not at this time a confirmed date for a potential meeting ," the aide told
the Caller .
" Don't think he is coming ," added one Republican lawmaker on Wednesday.
The same lawmaker told TheDCNF on Tuesday that Rosenstein was likely to testify before the
House Judiciary and House Oversight & Government Reform Committees to answer questions
about claims he discussed wearing a wire during his interactions with Trump.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus had called on Rosenstein to testify about
his remarks, which were first reported by The New York Times on Sept. 21.
The conservative lawmakers, including North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and Ohio Rep. Jim
Jordan, have been staunch critics of Rosenstein because of his failure to respond to requests
for documents related to the FBI's handling of the Trump-Russia probe. - Daily Caller
On Tuesday we reported that the FBI's former top attorney, James Baker, told Congressional
investigators last week that Rosenstein wasn't joking about taping Trump.
"As far as Baker was concerned, this was a real plan being discussed," reports
The Hill 's John Solomon, citing a confidential source.
"It was no laughing matter for the FBI," the source added.
Solomon points out that Rosenstein's comments happened right around the time former FBI
Director James Comey was fired.
McCabe, Baker's boss, was fired after the DOJ discovered that he had leaked self-serving
information to the press and then lied to investigators about it. Baker, meanwhile, was central
to the surveillance apparatus within the FBI during the counterintelligence operation on
As the former FBI general counsel, Baker was a senior figure with a pivotal position who
had the ear of the FBI director.
Baker also is at the heart of surveillance abuse accusations , many from congressional
Republicans. His deposition lays the groundwork for a planned closed-door House GOP interview
with Rosenstein later this week.
Baker, formerly the FBI's top lawyer, helped secure the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, as well as three subsequent
Meanwhile, the New
York Times noted that McCabe's own memos attest to Rosenstein's intentions to record Trump
- which led to Rosenstein reportedly tendering a verbal resignation to White House chief of
staff John Kelly.
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered
the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie
Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me
too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right
because she is a woman!
I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first
thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was
appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95
percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.
For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To
regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is
acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically
corrupt politicians in the US.
You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh
clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the
Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show
that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people
in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to
enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed
from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than
in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this
cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and
root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their
teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value.
Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel
and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't
even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.
Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness
rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski),
however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to
REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.
I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with
the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife.
In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party
to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their
destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair
chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor
suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.
The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid
social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college
courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer
chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a
man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of
social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.
They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make
the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and
their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they
Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet,
Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let
this happen in America.
They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court
Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no
doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is
shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and
creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he
was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.
The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is
destined to be.
Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully
defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are
concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling.
Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has
surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done
nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity
'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either).
Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia,
China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the
wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been
promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god
damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as
Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to
keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.
Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a
partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an
This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less
than 1% of the population we're talking about.
This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when
the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with
George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of
those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.
Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution
that it is
This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of
Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq
War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing
classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you
absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground
because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and
Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense.
Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for
the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.
Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy
America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the
highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades
distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground
economically or stayed static no improvement.
Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left'
circus will be We The People.
Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population.
The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use
legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo
Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Because that is precisely how the smear game works.
The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the
defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From
then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than
why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers'
primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of
the smears within them.
If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed
against Corbyn , who unfortunately
fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand. No, the only way to
effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the
temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics
and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation,
especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you
do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start
defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.
The Democratic Party is widely favored to win control of the House of Representatives in the
US midterm elections November 6, with projections that it will gain 30 to 50 seats, or even
more, well above the net gain of 23 required for a majority.
The last time the Democratic Party won control of the House from the Republicans was in
2006, when it captured 30 Republican seats on the basis of a limited appeal to the massive
antiwar sentiment among working people after three years of disastrous and bloody warfare in
Iraq, and five years after the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
In stark contrast, there is not a hint of an antiwar campaign by the Democratic challengers
seeking Republican seats in the 2018 elections. On the contrary, the pronouncements of leading
Democrats on foreign policy issues have been strongly pro-war, attacking the Trump
administration from the right for its alleged softness on Russia and its hostility to
traditional US-led alliances like NATO.
This is particularly true of the 30 Democratic congressional nominees in competitive races
who come from a national-security background. These challengers, previously identified by the
World Socialist Web Site as the CIA Democrats , constitute the
largest single grouping among Democratic nominees in competitive seats, more than state and
local officials, lawyers or those wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns.
The 30 national-security candidates include six actual CIA, FBI or military intelligence
agents, six State Department or other civilian national security officials, 11 combat veterans
from Iraq and Afghanistan, all but one an officer, and seven other military veterans, including
pilots, naval officers and military prosecutors (JAGs).
The range of views expressed by these 30 candidates is quite limited. With only one
exception, Jared Golden , running in the First District of Maine, the military-intelligence
Democrats do not draw any negative conclusions from their experience in leading, planning or
fighting in the wars of the past 25 years, including two wars against Iraq, the invasion of
Afghanistan, and other military engagements in the Persian Gulf and North and East Africa.
Golden, who is also the only rank-and-file combat veteran -- as opposed to an officer -- and
the only one who admits to having suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, criticizes
congressional rubber-stamping of the wars of the past 20 years. "Over the past decade and a
half, America has spent trillions on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on other conflicts
across the globe," his campaign website declares. "War should be a last resort, and only
undertaken when the security interests of America are clearly present, and the risks and costs
can be appropriately justified to the American people."
These sentiments hardly qualify as antiwar, but they sound positively radical compared to
the materials posted on the websites of many of the other military-intelligence candidates. In
some ways, Golden is the exception that proves the rule. What used to be the standard rhetoric
of Democratic Party candidates when running against the administration of George W. Bush has
been entirely scrapped in the course of the Obama administration, the first in American history
to have been engaged in a major military conflict for every day of its eight years.
All the other national-security candidates accept as a basic premise that the United States
must maintain its dominant world position. The most detailed foreign policy doctrine appears on
the website of Amy McGrath , who is now favored to win her contest against incumbent Republican
incumbent Andy Barr in the Sixth Congressional District of Kentucky.
McGrath follows closely the line of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton
presidential campaign, supporting the Iran nuclear deal that Trump tore up, embracing Israel,
warning of North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, and declaring it "critical that the US
work with our allies and partners in the region to counter China's advances" in the South China
Sea and elsewhere in Asia.
But Russia is clearly the main target of US national-security efforts, in her view. She
writes, "Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified that Russia is the greatest
threat to American security. Russia poses an existential threat to the United States due to its
nuclear weapons and its behavior in the past several years has been disturbing. Russia's
aggression in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria has been alarming. It's becoming more
assertive in the Arctic, likely the most important geostrategic zone of competition in the
coming decades. The US should consider providing defensive arms to Ukraine and exerting more
pressure on Moscow using economic sanctions."
She concludes by calling for an investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
Five other national-security candidates focus on specific warnings about the danger of
Russia and China, thus aligning themselves with the new national security orientation set in
the most recent Pentagon strategy document, which declares that the principal US national
security challenge is no longer the "war on terror," but the prospect of great power conflicts,
above all with Russia and China.
Jessica Morse , a former State Department and AID official in Iraq, running in the Fourth
District of California, blasts the Trump administration for "giving away global leadership to
powers like China and Russia. Our security and our economy will both suffer if those countries
are left to re-write the international rules."
Former FBI agent Christopher Hunter , running in the 12th District of Florida, declares,
"Russia is a clear and present danger to the United States. We emerged victorious over the
Soviet Union in the Cold War. We must resolve anew to secure an uncompromising victory over
Russia and its tyrannical regime."
Elissa Slotkin , the former CIA agent and Pentagon official running in Michigan's Eighth
Congressional District, cites her 14 years of experience "working on some of our country's most
critical national security matters, including U.S.-Russia relations, the counter-ISIS campaign,
and the U.S. relationship with NATO." She argues that "the United States must make investments
in its military, intelligence, and diplomatic power" in order to maintain "a unique and vital
role in the world."
Max Rose , a combat commander in Afghanistan now running in New York's 11th Congressional
District (Staten Island and Brooklyn), calls for "recognizing Russia as a hostile foreign power
and holding the Kremlin accountable for its attempts to undermine the sovereignty and
democratic values of other nations." Rose is still in the military reserves, and took two weeks
off from his campaign in August to participate in small-unit drills.
Joseph Kopser , running in the 21st District of Texas, is another anti-Russian firebrand,
writing on his website, "As a retired Army Ranger, I know first hand the importance of standing
strong with your allies. Given Russia's march toward a totalitarian state showing aggression
around the region, as well as their extensive cyber and information warfare campaign directed
at the U.S., England, and others, our Article 5 [NATO] commitment to our European allies and
partners is more important than ever." He concludes, "Since the mid-twentieth century, the
United States has been a principal world leader -- a standard that should never be
Four national-security candidates add North Korea and Iran to China and Russia as specific
targets of American military and diplomatic attack.
Josh Welle , a former naval officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, now running in the
Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey, writes, "We have to stand together in the face of
threats from countries like North Korea and Iran. The human rights violations and nuclear
capabilities of these countries pose a direct threat to the stability of this world and
therefore need to be met with strong military presence and a robust defense program to protect
Tom Malinowski , former assistant secretary of state for human rights, running in New
Jersey's Seventh District, calls for maintaining economic sanctions on Russia "until it
stops its aggression in Ukraine and interference in our democracy ,"
effusively endorses the state of Israel (whose government actually interferes in US elections
more than any other), and calls for stepped up sanctions against North Korea.
Mikie Sherill , a former Navy pilot and Russian policy officer, running in New Jersey's 11th
District, writes, "I have sat across the table from the Russians, and know that we need our
government to take the threat they pose seriously." She adds to this a warning about "threats
posed by North Korea and Iran," the two most immediate targets of military-diplomatic blackmail
by the Trump administration. She concludes, referring to North Korea's nuclear program, "For
that reason I support a robust military presence in the region and a comprehensive missile
defense program to defend America, our allies, and our troops abroad."
Dan McCready , an Iraq war unit commander who claims to have been born again when he was
baptized in water from the Euphrates River, calls for war to be waged only "with overwhelming
firepower," not "sporadically, with no strategy or end in sight, while our enemies like Iran,
North Korea, Russia, and the terrorists outsmart and outlast us." He is running in North
Carolina's Ninth Congressional District, adjacent to the huge military complex at Fort
One military-intelligence candidate cites immigration as a national-security issue, echoing
the position of the Trump administration, which constantly peddles scare stories that
terrorists are infiltrating the United States disguised as immigrants and refugees. That is
Richard Ojeda , running in the Third Congressional District of West Virginia, who publicly
boasts of having voted for Trump in 2016, in the same election in which he won a seat in the
West Virginia state senate running as a Democrat.
Ojeda writes on his web site, "We must also ensure that terrorists do not reach American
soil by abusing our immigration process. We must keep an up to date terror watch list but
provide better vetting for those that go onto the watch list."
A career Army Airborne officer, Ojeda voices the full-blown militarism of this social layer.
"If there is one thing I am confident in, it is the ability of our nation's military," he
declares. "The best way to keep Americans safe is to let our military do their job without
muddying up their responsibilities with our political agendas."
He openly rejects control of the military by civilian policy-makers. "War is not a social
experiment and I refuse to let politics play a role in my decision making when it comes to
keeping you and your family safe," he continues. "I will not take my marching orders from
anyone else concerning national security."
Only one of the 30 candidates, Ken Harbaugh , a retired Air Force pilot running in the
Seventh Congressional District of Ohio, centered on the industrial city of Canton, acknowledges
being part of this larger group. He notes, "In 2018, more vets are running for office than at
any moment in my lifetime. Because of the growing inability of Washington to deal responsibly
with the threats facing our nation, veterans from both sides of the aisle are stepping into the
Referring to the mounting prospect of war, he writes, "Today, we face our gravest
geopolitical challenge since 9/11. Our country remains at war in Afghanistan, we have troops
engaged in North Africa, Iraq and Syria, and Russia continues to bully our allies. Meanwhile,
North Korea has the ability to directly threaten the American mainland with nuclear missiles."
He concludes, "we need leaders with the moral authority to speak on these issues, leaders who
have themselves been on the front lines of these challenges."
These statements, taken cumulatively, present a picture of unbridled militarism and
aggression as the program of the supposed "opposition" to the Trump administration's own
saber-rattling and threats of "fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Perhaps even more remarkable is that the remaining 17 national-security candidates say
nothing at all about foreign policy (in 11 cases) or limit themselves to anodyne observations
about the necessity to provide adequate health care and other benefits to veterans (two cases),
or vague generalities about the need to combine a strong military with diplomatic efforts (four
cases). They give no specifics whatsoever.
In other words, while these candidates tout their own records as part of the
national-security apparatus as their principal credential for election to Congress, they
decline to tell the voters what they would do if they were in charge of American foreign
Given that these 17 include intelligence agents ( Abigail Spanberger and Gina Ortiz Jones ),
a National Security Council Iraq war planner ( Andy Kim ), and numerous other high-level State
Department and military commanders, the silence can have only the most ominous
These CIA Democrats don't want to tell voters about their plans for foreign policy and
military intervention because they know these measures are deeply unpopular. They aim to gain
office as stealth candidates, unveiling their program of militarism and war only after they
take their seats, when they may very well exercise decisive influence in the next Congress.
President Trump said that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the victim of a Democrat
Hoax, and that allegations of sexual assault levied by multiple women were "all made up" and
In comments made to reporters on the White House driveway, Trump addressed rumors that the
Democrats will investigate and attempt to impeach Kavanaugh if they regain control over the
House or Senate during midterms.
"So, I've been hearing that now they're thinking about impeaching a brilliant jurist -- a
man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax that was set up by the Democrats
using the Democrats' lawyers -- and now they want to impeach him," said Trump.
The President then suggested that the attacks on Kavanaugh will bring conservatives to the
polls for midterms:
"I think it's an insult to the American public," said Trump. "The things they said about him
-- I don't even think he ever heard of the words. It was all made-up. It was fabricated. And
it's a disgrace. And I think it's going to really show you something come November sixth."
"... It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. ..."
What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the
wagons. They've generated too much animus in the process and they're going to get
Aftermath As Prologue
"I believe her!"
Really? Why should anyone believe her?
Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced
something traumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said
that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine
Blasey Ford was lying, through and through, in her injured little girl voice, like a bad
imitation of Truman Capote.
I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities
underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last
presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines
is going to blow wide open.
It turns out that the Deep State is a small world.
Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael
Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying
to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury?
What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA,
she just happened to hook up with him.
It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where
her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next
four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the
"sexual assault" circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and
that she worked in the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York under Preet
Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer? Could Dr. Ford have
spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs.
Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean's lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top
lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia
investigations before resigning in February this year -- in fact, he sat in on the notorious
"unsworn" interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!
Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford's previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms
prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week -- as
reported by the The Wall Street Journal -- that she "felt pressured" by Monica McLean and her
representatives to change her story -- that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault,
or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think
that's called suborning perjury.
None of this is trivial and the matter can't possibly rest there. Too much of it has been
unraveled by what remains of the news media. And meanwhile, of course, there is at least one
grand jury listening to testimony from the whole cast-of-characters behind the botched Hillary
investigation and Robert Mueller's ever more dubious-looking Russian collusion inquiry: the
aforementioned Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, et. al. I have a
feeling that these matters are now approaching critical mass with the parallel unraveling of
the Christine Blasey Ford "story."
The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans
over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe
she acted on her own in this shady business. What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ
associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They've generated too much animus in
the process and they're going to get nailed. These matters are far from over and a major battle
is looming in the countdown to the midterm elections. In fact, op-ed writer Charles M. Blow
sounded the trumpet Monday morning in his idiotic column titled:
Liberals, This is War . Like I've been saying: Civil War Two.
Blasey-Ford happens to work at Palo Alto University, which is the west coast HQ for the
left wing feminist movement in the US. Here's a good video by a woman professor from Canada
that blows the lid off the entire conspiracy:
Nope, the people are so fragmented and full of disinfo and propaganda that they actually
think the other peons are the real problem. While we peons slaughter each other for having
different opinions on the privileged predator class spokespeople, they hop into the private
planes and disappear.
"... As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out ..."
"... This entire episode has Her Majesty's Secret Service's fingerprints all over it. Steele's key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate about his work – almost as if he'd have done it for free. And then there was the earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook Stefan Halper to Carter Page. And then there's the mysterious alleged "link" to Russian intelligence, Professor Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later claims it was a Russian covert operation. ..."
"... It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had planted percolated into plain view. Some "Russian agent"! ..."
"... Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations with at least one key ally. ..."
"... So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting a democratically-elected President by any means necessary. ..."
"... When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first? They can't allow it. ..."
"... The global Establishment has risen up against the People. ..."
As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out
conspiracy to overthrow a sitting US President extends far beyond our own "Deep State." As I've
saying in this space for quite some time, it's been an international team effort from the
beginning. Setting aside the British origins of the obscene "dossier" compiled by "ex"-MI6
agent Christopher Steele, we now have further confirmation of foreign involvement in President
decision to delay (perhaps indefinitely) the declassification of key Russia-gate documents.
While US intelligence officials were expected to oppose the move, "Trump was also swayed by
foreign allies, including Britain, in deciding to reverse course, these people said. It wasn't
immediately clear what other governments may have raised concerns to the White House."
But of course the Washington Post knows perfectly well which other governments would
have reason to raise "concerns" to the White House. It's clear from the public record that the
following "allies" have rendered the "Resistance" essential assistance at one time or
United Kingdom – This entire episode has Her Majesty's Secret Service's
fingerprints all over it. Steele's key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was
not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate
about his work – almost as if he'd have done it for free. And then there was the
earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook
Stefan Halper to Carter
Page. And then there's the mysterious alleged "link" to Russian intelligence, Professor
Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later
claims it was a Russian covert operation.
It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians
had Hillary Clinton's emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had
planted percolated into plain view. Some "Russian agent"!
Australia – Why would the former Australian High Commissioner to the UK seek
out George Papadopoulos, a low-level semi-advisor to the Trump campaign, and milk him for
information while getting him drunk?
Israel – So how did Papadopoulos find himself spilling his guts at a bar
with a top Australian intelligence figure? The Times reports that "The meeting at the
bar came about because of a series of connections, beginning with an Israeli Embassy official
who introduced Mr. Papadopoulos to another Australian diplomat in London."
Estonia – The Times and other outlets report that a "Baltic
intelligence agency" was the first to relay "concerns" about Russian influence over the Trump
team. I'm willing to bet it was the Estonians, who have always been the most actively
anti-Russian actors in the region.
Ukraine – Democratic National Committee members actually met with Ukrainian
government leaders in an attempt to uncover dirt on Trump. Working together with the DNC,
Democratic official and Ukrainian lobbyist Alexandra Chalupa received active assistance from
the Ukrainian embassy, which became a veritable
locus of Clintonian campaign operations.
This is part of the price we pay for our vaunted "empire," and the "liberal international
order" the striped-pants set is so on about. As that grizzled old "isolationist" prophet, Garet
Garrett, described the insignia of empire at the dawn of the cold war:
"There is yet another sign that defines itself gradually. When it is clearly defined it may
be already too late to do anything about it. That is to say, a time comes when Empire finds
"A prisoner of history.
"The history of a Republic is its own history . A Republic may change its course, or
reverse it, and that will be its own business., But the history of Empire is a world history,
and belongs to many people."
A Republic may restrain itself, wrote Garrett, but "Empire must put forth its power" –
on whose behalf? There are many claimants whose wealth, position, and prestige depend on the
Imperial largesse. When that claim is threatened, the "satellites" turn against their
protector. This is what the Russia-gate covert action -- carried out by coordinated action of
our "allies" – is all about. We now have clear evidence of just how far our "client"
states are willing go to ensure that the American gravy train of free goodies continues to
Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would
be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it
tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations
with at least one key ally.
So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign
collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are
telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody
saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the
supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more
beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting
a democratically-elected President by any means necessary.
Here is the final irrefutable argument against America as the "world leader," designated
champion of the "liberal international order" – we become, as Garrett noted, a prisoner
of history. Indeed, we are no longer entitled to write our own history, but must endure the
lobbying and aggressive interventions of our ungrateful and spiteful "allies," whose welfare
states could not exist without generous US "defense" subsidies.
When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the
nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and
dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first?
They can't allow it.
And that's really the essence of the fight, the issue that will determine the woof and warp
of American politics in the new millennium. The global Establishment has risen up against the
People. There's no telling what the outcome will be, but one thing I know for sure: I know what
side I'm on. Do you?
"... And what about the possibility of MI5's involvement in, dare we use the term, false flag operations? ..."
"... As someone who abhors the premise of conspiracy theory on principle, the fact that more and more are turning to its warm embrace as an intellectual reflex against what is politely described as the 'official narrative' of events, well this is no surprise when we learn of the egregious machinations of Western intelligence agencies such as Britain's MI5. ..."
"... If any such investigation is to be taken seriously, however, it must include in its remit the power to investigate all possible links between Britain's intelligence community and organisations such as, let's see, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ? ..."
"... The deafening UK mainstream media and political class silence over the trail connecting 2017 Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi and MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency, leaves a lingering stench of intrigue that will not out. The work of investigative journalist Mark Curtis on this sordid relationship is unsurpassed. ..."
"... "The evidence suggests that the barbaric Manchester bombing, which killed 22 innocent people on May 22nd, is a case of blowback on British citizens arising at least partly from the overt and covert actions of British governments." ..."
"... "The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its foreign policy objectives. Whitehall also saw Qatar as a proxy to provide boots on the ground in Libya in 2011, even as it empowered hardline Islamist groups." ..."
"... "Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May – who was Home Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi [Muammar Gaddafi] – clearly have serious questions to answer. We believe an independent public enquiry is urgently needed." ..."
"... In words that echo down to us from ancient Rome, the poet Juvenal taunts our complacency with a question most simple and pertinent: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will guard the guards themselves? ..."
An intelligence service given free rein to commit 'serious crimes' in its own country is an
intelligence service that is the enemy of its people. The quite astounding
revelation that Britain's domestic intelligence service, MI5, has enjoyed this very freedom
for decades has only just been made public at a special tribunal in London, set up to investigate the country's
intelligence services at the behest of a coalition of human rights groups, alleging a pattern
of illegality up to and including collusion in murder.
The hitherto MI5 covert policy sanctioning its agents to commit and/or solicit serious
crimes, as and when adjudged provident, is known as the Third Direction. This codename has been
crafted, it would appear, by someone with a penchant for all things James Bond within an agency
whose average operative is more likely to be 5'6" and balding with a paunch and bad teeth than
any kind of lantern-jawed 007.
The Pat Finucane Centre ,
one of the aforementioned human rights groups involved in bringing about this tribunal
investigation (Investigatory Powers Tribunal, to give it its Sunday name) into the nefarious
activities of Britain's domestic intelligence agency, issued a damning
statement in response to the further revelation that former Prime Minister David Cameron
introduced oversight guidelines with regard to the MI5 covert third direction policy back in
Cameron's decision to do so, the group claims, was far from nobly taken:
"It can be no coincidence that Prime Minister David Cameron issued new guidelines,
however flawed, on oversight of MI5 just two weeks before publication of the De Silva report
into the murder of Pat Finucane. The PM was clearly alive to the alarming evidence which was
about to emerge of the involvement of the Security Service in the murder. To date no-one within
a state agency has been held accountable. The latest revelations make the case for an
independent inquiry all the more compelling."
Pat Finucane, a Belfast Catholic, plied his trade as a human rights lawyer at a time when
the right to be fully human was denied the minority Catholic community of the small and
enduring outpost of British colonialism in the north east corner of Ireland, otherwise known as
Northern Ireland. He was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in 1989, back when the
decades-long conflict euphemistically referred to as the Troubles still raged, claiming victims both
innocent and not on all sides.
Unlike the vast majority of those killed and murdered in the course of this brutal conflict,
Finucane's murder sparked a long and hard fought struggle for justice by surviving family
members, friends and campaigners. They allege – rather convincingly, it should be said
– that it was carried out with the active collusion of MI5.
Stepping back and casting a wider view over this terrain, the criminal activities of
Britain's intelligence services constitute more than enough material for a book of considerable
heft. How fortunate then that just such a book has already been
In his 'Dead Men Talking: Collusion, Cover Up and Murder in Northern Ireland's Dirty War',
author Nicholas Davies "provides information on a number of the killings [during the
Troubles], which were authorized at the highest level of MI5 and the British
But over and above the crimes of MI5 in Ireland, what else have those doughty defenders of
the realm been up to over the years? After all, what is the use of having a license to engage
in serious criminal activity, including murder and, presumably, torture, if you're not prepared
to use (abuse) it? It begs the question of how many high profile deaths attributed to suicide,
natural causes, and accident down through the years have been the fruits of MI5 at work?
And what about the possibility of MI5's involvement in, dare we use the term, false flag
As someone who abhors the premise of conspiracy theory on principle, the fact that more and
more are turning to its warm embrace as an intellectual reflex against what is politely
described as the 'official narrative' of events, well this is no surprise when we learn of the
egregious machinations of Western intelligence agencies such as Britain's MI5.
What we are bound to state, doing so without fear of contradiction, is this particular
revelation opens up a veritable Pandora's Box of grim possibilities when it comes to the
potential crimes committed by Britain's domestic intelligence agency, ensuring that a full and
vigorous investigation and public inquiry is now both necessary and urgent.
If any such investigation is to be taken seriously, however, it must include in its remit
the power to investigate all possible links between Britain's intelligence community and
organisations such as, let's see, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ?
The deafening UK mainstream media and political class silence over the trail connecting 2017
Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi and MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency,
leaves a lingering stench of intrigue that will not out. The work
of investigative journalist Mark Curtis on this sordid relationship is unsurpassed.
As Curtis writes,
"The evidence suggests that the barbaric Manchester bombing, which killed 22 innocent
people on May 22nd, is a case of blowback on British citizens arising at least partly from
the overt and covert actions of British governments."
In the same report he arrives at a conclusion both damning and chilling:
"The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its
foreign policy objectives. Whitehall also saw Qatar as a proxy to provide boots on the ground
in Libya in 2011, even as it empowered hardline Islamist groups."
Finally: "Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May – who was Home
Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi [Muammar Gaddafi]
– clearly have serious questions to answer. We believe an independent public enquiry is
In words that echo down to us from ancient Rome, the poet Juvenal taunts our complacency
with a question most simple and pertinent: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will
guard the guards themselves?
Edward R Murrow
puts it rather more bluntly: "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
Sooner or later, people in Britain are going to have to wake up to who the real enemy
"... Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state. ..."
"... It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC. ..."
"... All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump. ..."
The Kavanaugh circus was a sad spectacle. His wife was Bush's personal secretary. The
Democrats used the grievance culture because that is all they have. Focusing on abortion and
grievances keeps the public stirred up and diverts attention from some other very serious
very troubling issues that they are cashing out on.
Snopes has worked hard to discredit the allegations that came out on some websites that
are a bit crazy but the information is interesting. She MAY well have been the intake
psychologist for this program. Then again, maybe not. She was doing work at Stanford and the
scope of that work is not fully known.
Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three
letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running
building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office
sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched
out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the
Yes, CIA backed HRC since WJC was their boy from the time he attended the school of
foreign service at Georgetown where he was recruited, which is how he got his law degree and
was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. The CIA has either had its own people as POTUS or
controlled them via other means since late November 1963. Trump isn't one of them, thus the
virulent opposition and collaboration to undermine his office. Now it looks like he's under
control, but with Trump you never can tell.
Just talking to myself mostly...
If CIA backed HRC, and US Military backed Trump, and of course the israeli's, (read The
Mossad) also backed Trump, then it means that US Military and The Mossad go hand in hand in
Global Theater Operations, since they didn't (apparently) trusted CIA enough? Or is it that
what we see here is actually just The Mossad doing some moar extortion operations so they get
stuff from the CIA or also the Military transferred over to israeli control?
The Brazil elections if the rightwingers (read fascists) win I bet will be a rainfall for
israel, since, there you go, full country in upheaval, letaves you with great opportunities
to go sell your 5G and your smart dust and let the government keep every dissident in check,
without having to relly on third parties (Google/Apple/Microsoft - the bad guys full of
chinese chips.) that won't play with you along (israel). So they get to have their first own
little country (80 million?) to play with their new tech, and if you count that rgentina is
now back at the IMF, you just add the coiuntries now, from North to South: USA + Brazil +
Argentina, that's almost the entire Americas (minus Mexico and Canada, (but I gues uncle
Trump will make Mexican's comes to their senses with the Wall right?) That's not bad of a
"Market" of a lil country with merely 7 million people like Israel and it's "start up"
companies, right? No wonder Mossad doesn't like CIA now. They (retired vets?) took out too
much of their (could be) market share, right?
On Friday, 5 October, the U.S. Senate voted on whether to end unlimited debate and the
possibility of a filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, through a vote
on "cloture", the gimmick allowing Senators to do a filibuster or stop one, without actually
having to stand up and filibuster.
Shortly after Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy announced on 27 June 2018 that he would be
leaving the court, we discussed here on SST the fact that former president Obama, former
Democratic Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, current minority "leader" Charles Schumer,
and Senate Democrats muscled through a new "interpretation" of the Senate rules that allowed a
vote on cloture to require only a simple majority instead of 60 votes, for federal district
trial court and court of appeals judges, and other presidential appointees; but for supreme
court nominees, 60 votes were still required at that time . This allowed the Obama
administration to push through nominees easier.
But when Donald Trump was elected president, the vacancy on the supreme court after the
death of Antonin Scalia remained. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch. A cloture vote was demanded to
end debate on Gorsuch and to proceed to a final up or down vote. But the vote was not
successful and did not get the required 60 votes. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell,
then followed up on what he said when the Democrats changed the filibuster rule: "You'll regret
this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think". He did what Harry Reid had done, and
with the slight Republican majority, reinterpreted the Senate filibuster rule to remove the
60-vote requirement for supreme court nominees. The Democrats could hardly effectively protest,
as they had unclean hands from their own prior actions. A second cloture vote was taken on
Gorsuch, and it passed, since only a simple majority was required. On the subsequent final
vote, he was confirmed. Had Obama et. al. not been greedy and arrogant, the monkey would have
been on the back of the Republicans about changing the filibuster rule, and I think it is
likely that McConnell would not have changed it. The dynamic in confirming supreme court
justices appointed by Trump would have been dramatically different.
When the Kavanaugh nomination was made, the Democrats again did not think past the end of
their noses, and tried to block him through a three act play with an accusation of sexual
misconduct made by Christine Blasey Ford. Two more accusations then conveniently showed up,
along with obviously coached "protesters". But with no real supporting evidence, the entire
approach began publicly to implode on itself, and behind the scenes, enough votes were put
together to confirm Kavanaugh's appointment.
"... "'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'" ..."
"... 'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'" ..."
"... Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats. ..."
Four days after he described Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as
a "very credible witness," President Donald Trump could no longer contain his feelings or
constrain his instincts.
With the fate of his Supreme Court nominee in the balance, Trump let his "Make America Great
Again" rally attendees in Mississippi know what he really thought of Ford's testimony.
"'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well,
you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get
'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?'
'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I
By now the Mississippi MAGA crowd was cheering and laughing.
Trump went on: "'What neighborhood was it in?' 'I don't know.' 'Where's the house?' 'I don't
know.' 'Upstairs, downstairs, where was it?' 'I don't know. But I had one beer. That's the only
thing I remember.'"
Since that day three years ago when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower to talk of
"rapists" crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, few Trump remarks have ignited greater
Commentators have declared themselves horrified and sickened that a president would so mock
the testimony of a victim of sexual assault.
The Republican senators who will likely cast the decisive votes on Kavanaugh's confirmation
-- Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski -- they all decried Trump's mimicry.
Yet, in tossing out the "Catechism of Political Correctness" and treating the character
assassination of Kavanaugh as what it was, a rotten conspiracy to destroy and defeat his
nominee, Trump's instincts were correct, even if they were politically incorrect.
This was not a "job interview" for Kavanaugh.
In a job interview, half the members of the hiring committee are not so instantly hostile to
an applicant that they will conspire to criminalize and crush him to the point of wounding his
family and ruining his reputation.
When Sen. Lindsey Graham charged the Democratic minority with such collusion, he was dead
on. This was a neo-Bolshevik show trial where the defendant was presumed guilty and due process
meant digging up dirt from his school days to smear and break him.
Our cultural elites have declared Trump a poltroon for daring to mock Ford's story of what
happened 36 years ago. Yet, these same elites reacted with delight at Matt Damon's "SNL"
depiction of Kavanaugh's angry and agonized appearance, just 48 hours before.
Is it not hypocritical to laugh uproariously at a comedic depiction of Kavanaugh's anguish,
while demanding quiet respect for the highly suspect and uncorroborated story of Ford?
Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said
Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate
In our widening and deepening cultural-civil war, the Kavanaugh nomination will be seen as a
landmark battle. And Trump's instincts, to treat his Democratic assailants as ideological
enemies, with whom he is in mortal struggle, will be seen as correct.
Consider. In the last half-century, which Supreme Court nominees were the most maligned and
Were they not Nixon nominee Clement Haynsworth, chief judge of the 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals, Reagan nominee Robert Bork, Bush 1 nominee Clarence Thomas, and Trump nominee Brett
Kavanaugh, the last three all judges on the nation's second-highest court, the District of
Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals?
Is it a coincidence that all four were Republican appointees, all four were judicial
conservatives, and all four were gutted on the grounds of philosophy or character?
Is it a coincidence that Nixon in Watergate, Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair, and now Trump
in Russiagate, were all targets of partisan campaigns to impeach and remove them from
Consider what happened to decent Gerald Ford who came into the oval office in 1974,
preaching "the politics of compromise and consensus."
To bring the country together after Watergate, Ford pardoned President Nixon. For that act
of magnanimity, he was torn to pieces by a Beltway elite that had been denied its anticipated
pleasure of seeing Nixon prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison.
Trump is president because he gets it. He understands what this Beltway elite are all about
-- the discrediting of his victory as a product of criminal collusion with Russia and his
resignation or removal in disgrace. And the "base" that comes to these rallies to cheer him on,
they get it, too.
Since Reagan's time, there are few conservatives who have not been called one or more of the
names in Hillary Clinton's litany of devils, her "basket of deplorables" -- racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, irredeemable.
The battle over Kavanaugh's nomination, and the disparagement of the Republicans who have
stood strongest by the judge, seems to have awakened even the most congenial to the new
We are all deplorables now.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the recent book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this
piece, has been given a pass by all sides. She had the Ford accusations in hand for weeks,
but sat on them. She could have passed them on to the FBI much earlier, and there would have
been adequate time for a thorough, professional, credible investigation of the accusations.
Perhaps that investigation would have been as inconclusive as the one that was ultimately
done. But it would have been done in an unhurried, and dignified manner. Nobody need have
been publicly humiliated. Nobody need have been dragged into Congress to testify reluctantly,
in public, about a painful episode in her life. And, more importantly, the investigation,
having been done in the normal course of background investigation, would have had
credibility–nobody would have called it a whitewash. And the resulting confirmation, or
not, of Kavanaugh would have ultimately been accepted by most people as legitimate.
Feinstein had the ability to make that happen, but she chose instead to sit on this until
the last minute when, surely she knew, it would unleash a sh**storm.
Her excuse that she was protecting Ford's privacy holds no water at all. A regular FBI
investigation could have been conducted discretely: they know how to keep things confidential
when they want to. Moreover, take a look at Feinstein's abysmal voting record on
surveillance: she doesn't respect anybody's privacy, ever.
Feinstein is a disgrace to California and to the United States. I'm certainly voting for
her opponent, and I hope everybody else will, too.
I think that from the very beginning this Court Nomination has been about the midterm
election. The Democrats never really expected to be bale to stop Kavvanaugh.But they figured
that they could use anger against him in order to get out their "base" in November
In the end, both parties will probably get their "Base" out to vote.But there is going to
be a lot of wrecked human lives left behind because of this sad,sordid battle
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of
innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by
Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged
multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape.
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and
simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into
the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of
innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night
– or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations
fail to meet the "more likely than not" standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these
charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.
With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of
the financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine
justices will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush
and Donald Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have
been nominated by presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter
of torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on
uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the
From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his
nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer
no principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic
Party has abandoned as a political issue.
In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the Democratic
Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's
nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally
reactionary justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:
"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates
to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the
The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at
by Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to
defend her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh
had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the
Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination
was blocked by the Republicans.
Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one
another's opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from
an opinion written by the other only once.
In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans
secured the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new
"narrative" leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate
to recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no
longer can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying
to compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA
population, including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of
living. They see exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously
supported Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no
political party that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
"ph" is one of the more subtle Concern Trolls I've seen, I'll give them that.
Reactionaries need to be more afraid that their relentlessly tightening grip on every
single lever of power will lead inexorably to the most bloodthirsty correction in human
history. It's not something anyone would wish for, but what's the realistic alternative?
American elites are just too stupid to enact the kind of sophisticated authoritarian controls
that might stave off total collapse.
The difference between LBJ and Trump is that LBJ had a vision of what he wanted the
government to do and a roadmap how to get the government to where it wanted it to go. We can
argue later whether that was the right vision, but you can't say that LBJ didn't have one.
Trump clearly doesn't. His strategy consists of half-baked ideas that he fails to follow
through on and declaring victory, bizarre and pointless insult contests, and retweeting
whatever it is he saw on Fox and Friends.
LBJ worked effectively with Congress to pass his domestic agenda. Trump has put several
things successfully through Congress, but they are more Congressional Republicans' agenda
than his own.
Notwithstanding the differences, I think the similarity is important. But I have a
different take on it. I think the world today would be a different, and better place, if LBJ
had been removed from office before he escalated the Vietnam war.
Our nation's problems are far more due to the incompetence and perfidy of our presidents
than they are to any overzealous scrutiny or harassment of them. We don't remove them from
office nearly often enough.
Trump is more than an eccentric, as this apology piece wishes to make him out to be. LBJ
never said reckless, destructive, divisive things.
Trump was having another one of his strong man rallies yesterday, not campaign rallies,
just his "Love me!" rallies, the kinds that autocrats have all the time. And here's what this
President of the United States said:
"They (Democrats) want to destroy people. These are really evil people."
<b."The Democrats -- and I say this -- and I've dealt with it -- the Democrats are the
party of crime."
Forget whether you like his policies or not. This – the man, his character –
are what make him so wretched. And we wonder where the polarization comes? Trump is the
The trouble with comparing a POTUS with an average person suffering from paranoia is that,
unlike John or Jane Doe, any POTUS is bound to have millions of actual enemies. Some of them
may even form conspiracies against the POTUS, though few if any will bear fruit. Only if
(s)he thinks that everybody in the world is against her/him is a diagnosis of paranoia
appropriate for a POTUS. BTW, haven't there been 43 of them through Obama, rather than 44?
Remember that Grover Cleveland is counted twice, as he both preceded and succeeded Benjamin
Craig in OH "The Tea Party (remember those folks?) provided the model for no compromise
politics. The far left has decided to use that model for themselves. This will leave
moderates with no place to go."
I particularly loved it when Jean Schmidt, that far right-wing Republican congresswoman
from Ohio, was voted out because she had simply shaken Obama's hand while he was walking down
the aisle to make a State of the Union speech. Yet, the cons here all seem to think that it's
only the left that gets hysterical and goes all emotional.
"... The British are conducting an international campaign to smear and militarily and economically confront Russia and China because the City of London financial and imperial order is economically and morally bankrupt and has no plan to build a future for humanity over the course of the next 50 years. ..."
"... A PDF of this petition can be found here. ..."
Former MI6 agent Christopher Steele told his Department of Justice handler, former
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, that Steele would "do anything" to prevent
Donald Trump's election and was desperate to stop it from happening. Steele was the author of
the notorious fake dossier claiming that Donald Trump, having previously been sexually
compromised by Vladimir Putin, was working with Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton. Steele's
bizarre, amateurish, and totally fake dossier was used by a corrupted FBI to justify steps in
its illegal investigation, despite the fact that this dossier was paid for by the Clinton
campaign and its facts were unverified.
According to multiple published reports, Obama's CIA Director, John Brennan, convened an
illegal intelligence task force at the CIA to launder and investigate fake dirt on Trump,
produced by a British spy circle led by former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove for purposes of
destroying the Trump presidential campaign. Brennan did this because, he said, Donald Trump's
election would jeopardize the "special relationship" between U.S. and British intelligence
agencies. Dearlove played a key role in the faked intelligence which led the United States
into the Iraq War.
LaRouchePAC, through a previous petition to President Trump on August 10, 2017 -- and to
Congress on December 29, 2017 -- called for complete exposure of the British attempt to
nullify the 2016 U.S. election based on British strategic interests. At the time, virtually
no one else thought the British were the source of foreign interference in the 2016
elections. That fact is now widely recognized. The so-called "resistance," both within and
without the government, is stalling further release of key documents to Congressional
committees in order to win the midterm elections and begin impeachment proceedings in the
House of Representatives.
The British are conducting an international campaign to smear and militarily and
economically confront Russia and China because the City of London financial and imperial
order is economically and morally bankrupt and has no plan to build a future for humanity
over the course of the next 50 years. This British campaign is not in the interest of
the United States, and, Mr. President, you were elected in substantial part on the promise to
end America's useless wars on behalf of British strategic objectives.
The complete exposure of the British/Obama Administration subversion of the Trump
presidency represents a unique opportunity for Americans to take our country back: to, once
again, fully embrace the profound difference between the British imperial system and the
American system of political economy created by Alexander Hamilton and advanced by Lyndon
LaRouche. The British system produces the degradation of the majority of the population for
the wealth of the few; the American system produces general prosperity.
Now, therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon you to:
order the declassification of documents referencing all British-spawned
allegations, wherever in our government they may reside, concerning your relationship
or that of your campaign workers to Russia and demand that the British produce the same
from their files;
order the declassification of all documents -- including those held by the CIA,
Director of National Intelligence, NSA, FBI, Department of Justice, Treasury
Department, State Department, Obama White House, and any other relevant agencies --
concerning any alleged ties to Russia by you or individuals associated with your
order the declassification of all documents demonstrating, alleging, or suggesting
that the Russians did not provide files they hacked from the DNC or John Podesta to
order the declassification of all documents requested of the Department of Justice
and the FBI by the House Intelligence, Government Oversight, and Judiciary Committees,
and the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning "Russiagate." This includes the
now-delayed DOJ Inspector General's report concerning the Clinton email investigation.
All such documents should be delivered to the House Intelligence Committee and the
House Judiciary Committee for purposes of producing an unclassified report to the
American people concerning the origins and reasons for the "Russiagate" insurrection
against the Trump presidency.
End the special relationship with the United Kingdom; end the secret government.
As b wrote in Moon of Alabama blog: "The anti-Kavanaugh strategy by the Democratic Party leadership was an utter
failure. They could have emphasized his role in the Patriot Act, the Bush torture regime and his earlier lies to Congress to
disqualify him. Instead they used the fake
against him which allowed Trump to do what he does best - wield victimhood
"... The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party. ..."
"... Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine. ..."
"... A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered. ..."
The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the
Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive
theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees
that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the
president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the
Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17
years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year
old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party.
Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a
crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who
along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and
then castrated and fed to swine.
A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be
allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court
nominee's reputation was squandered.
There are important issues before the United States having to do with the very soul of the
country. They involve constitutional and separation of powers constraints on executive branch
powers and the protection of US civil liberty. Important books, such as Charlie Savage's
Takeover have been written about the Cheney-Bush successful assault on the principle
that the president is accountable under law. Can the executive branch torture despite domestic
and international laws against torture? Can the executive branch spy on citizens without
warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary? Can the
executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US
Constitution's prohibition? Can the executive branch kill US citizens without due process of
law, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law
professor John Yoo say "yes the president can."
Instead of using the opportunity to find out if Kavanaugh stood for liberty or unbridled
presidential power, feminist harpies indulged in an orgy of man-hate.
And it wasn't just the RadFem harpies. It was the entire liberal/progresive/left which has
discredited itself even more than the crazed feminist Georgetown University professor, who, by
the way, unlike what would have been required of a heterosexual male, did not have to apologize
and was not fired as a male would have been.
There is now a "funding platform" endorsed by liberal/progressive/left websites that claims
to have raised $3 million to unseat Senator Susan Collins for voting, after hearing all the
scant evidence, to confirm Kavanaugh. Websites such as Commondreams, CounterPunch, OpEdNews are
losing their credibility as they mire themselves in divisive Identity Politics in which
everyone is innocent except the white heterosexual male. Precisely at the time when Trump's
capture by the Zionist neoconservative warmongers needs protests and opposition as the US is
being driven to war with Iran, Russia, and China, there is no opposition as the United States
dissolves into the hatreds spawned by Identity Politics.
To see how absurd the RadFem/liberal/progressive/left is, let's assume that the vague,
unsubstantiated accusation that is 30 to 40 years late against Kavanaugh is true. Let's assume
that the encounter of bed tussling occurred. If rape was the intention, why wasn't she raped? I
suggest a likely scenario. There is an unchaperoned house party. Alcohol is present. The
accuser admits to drinking beer with boys in a house with access to bedrooms. The accused
assumes, which would have been a normal assumption in the 1980s, that the girl is available.
Otherwise, why is she there? So he tries her, and she is not. So he gives up and lets her go.
How is this a serious sexual offense?
Even if the accused had persisted and raped his accuser, how does this crime compare to the
enormous extraordinary horrific crimes against humanity resulting in the destruction in whole
or part of eight countries and millions of human beings during the Clinton, Cheney-Bush, Obama,
and Trump regimes?
There has been no accountability for these obvious and undeniable crimes. Why are not
feminists and presidents of Catholic Universities such as Georgetown and Catholic University in
Washington, and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US media, and
the liberal/progressive/left websites concerned about real crimes instead of make-believe ones?
What has happened to our country that nothing that really matters ever becomes part of public
US administrations have not only murdered, maimed, orphaned, and dislocated millions of
totally innocent human beings, but also the evil and corrupt US government, protected by the
presstitute media, which is devoid of character and integrity, has tortured in violation of
United States law hundreds of innocents sold to it under the US bounty system in Afghanistan,
when the Cheney-Bush regime desperately needed "terrorists" to justify its war based on nothing
but its lies.
All sorts of totally innocent people were tortured by sadistic US government personnel who
delighted in making people under their power suffer. These were unprotected people picked up by
war lords in response to Washington's offer of a bounty for "terrorists" and sold to the
Americans. The victims included aid workers, traveling salesmen, unprotected visitors, and
others who lacked protection from being misrepresented as "terrorists" in order to be sold for
$5,000 so that Dick Cheney and the criminal Zionist neocons would have some "terrorists" to
show to justify their war crime.
ORDER IT NOW
The utterly corrupt US media was very reticent about telling Americans that close to 100% of
the "world's most dangerous terrorists," in the words of the criminal US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, were released as innocent of all
With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of the
financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine justices
will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush and Donald
Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have been nominated by
presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter of
torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on
uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the
From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his
nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer no
principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic Party has
abandoned as a political issue.
In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the
Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's
nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally reactionary
justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:
"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose
from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the Times
The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at by
Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to defend
her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh had a
voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the Democratic Party
attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination was blocked by the
Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one another's
opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from an opinion
written by the other only once.
In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans secured
the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new "narrative"
leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.
I come across information about connection of Kavanauch to Vince Foster before but this is
probably the most complete text of what can be called Internet rumor. The suicide has
nevertheless continued to fuel speculation: then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made news in 2016 when he remarked
in an interview with the Washington Post that Foster's death was
"very fishy", and added "I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they
think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair."
"... Praised *dissent* in Roe ..."
"... Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare ..."
"... Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants ..."
"... Opposes net neutrality ..."
"... Opposes consumer bureau ..."
"... Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional ..."
"... -- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018 ..."
"... " According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life -- without a warrant" ..."
"... " According to his wife , security operative Jerry Parks delivers large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovers this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she has to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asks her husband whether he is dealing drugs, and he allegedly explains that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn't "know what they were doing, and he didn't care to know. He told me to forget what I'd seen"" ..."
"... color of law: n. the claim or appearance of an act based upon constitutional authority via enforcement of statute, when in reality no such constitutional authority exists, e.g. secret FISA courts where the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments do not apply. ..."
"... "Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy" ..."
"... A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald's Western educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire. ..."
Both sides seem to be interested in the truth , only in so far as it serves their
respective political agenda's. Nothing more.
I was not particularly impressed with the testimony from either Judge Kavanaugh or Dr.
I thought the Judge was too angry , whining, and evasive, when he could have been much
more precise and pointed in his responses. I was not a big fan of the "calendar"story (true
or not) nor his responses to an FBI investigation.
"... The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria. ..."
The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and
hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem
of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria.
... ... ...
(SEN. SHELDON) WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club
reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?
KAVANAUGH : Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school.
Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College,
got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.
... ... ...
In earlier testimony in September, Kavanaugh appeared the model of judicial restraint and
non-partisanship. On Thursday he dropped all the pretenses.
" This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit," he
said, "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear
that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and
millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
" This is a circus," Kavanaugh said. "The consequences will extend long past my
nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades." He then issued what can only be
seen as a threat: "And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early
2000s, what goes around comes around."
The judge's outburst unleashed an attack from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sen. Diane
Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the opposition party.
" I hope the American people can see through this sham," Graham screamed.
"This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap If
you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in
... ... ...
Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois, said :
" Contrary to the mantra that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have it in
for Kavanaugh, they've largely let him off the hook on a number of critical issues, instead
"While there's substantial attention being paid to the serious charges of sexual assault
by Kavanaugh, there's been very little note that he is a putative war criminal.
Specifically, recently released documents show that while Kavanaugh worked for the George
W. Bush administration, one of the people he attempted to put on the judiciary was John
Yoo, who authored many of the justifications for torture that came out of the Bush
Kavanaugh's career as a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of
corporations, the security state, and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial.
The hearings could have provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of
torture, mass spying, and the domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had
an important role in each of these.
Sifting – I read it, and it was very interesting indeed. Ms. Ford needs to be
investigated. She has yet to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee her therapist
notes and the information they wanted re her polygraph test.
Her former boyfriend of six years has said that she was never claustrophobic, was not
afraid of tight spaces, flew often, even on small planes, he witnesssed her help her friend
prepare for a polygraph test with the FBI, and, although the reporter did not want to talk
about it, it appears that her sexual relationships were not hampered by this alleged
Sounds like her FBI friend may have helped draft the letter to Senator Feinstein. Many
questions to be answered by Ms. Ford.
irina , October 4, 2018 at 12:37 pm
I found the 'flying around the Hawai'ian Islands in a propeller plane' to be
rather telling. This activity could probably be easily corroborated by family
or friends or even old postcards, receipts, etc. If anything is designed to
make a person feel 'trapped' (in more ways than one), a prop plane ranks
right up there. Her 'fear of flying' (interesting reference to Erica Jong as well !)
seems to me to be extremely selective.
EVERYONE'S behavior during this Kavanaugh/Ford circus was deplorable. Made for a nice
distraction though didn't it. Christine Blasey Ford deserves an award for her performance,
because that's all it was – acting. She's a disgrace to all women who have 'really'
been raped, many violently, including myself. And we certainly don't reach out 36 years
later to profit from our traumatic experience. Gofundme: Help Christine Blasey Ford
$528,475 raised of $150,000. Donald Trump and our entire Government is a joke, a laughing
stock for the entire world to see. It doesn't get much more disgusting than this. Oh but
wait, it will.
robjira , October 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm
As was pointed out in this article (and thanks to Mr. Lauria for re-emphasising the
point), Kavanaugh already had plenty of factors against his suitability for the Supreme
Court; mainly his being an enthusiastic war monger and an accessory to war crimes (not to
mention the appearance of judicial corruption). Rather than focusing on these salient
issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on display. It is distressing that
otherwise insightful posters to these boards are getting caught up in the partisan theatre
which, once again, has proven to be highly effective in keeping the citizenry divided
against itself while the usual criminals continue to laugh our collective way to either
thermonuclear or ecological apocalypse.
xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Bridget , October 4, 2018 at 12:51 am
"Rather than focusing on these salient issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on
That's because the Democrats are equally guilty of war crimes and war mongering. There's
no partisanship when it comes to grinding under the corporate boot.
Why is it that the Republicans aren't shouting about Ukraine's collusion with the DNC to
benefit Hillary Clinton? [And they did, succeeding in ruining Manafort, and birthing the
Trump/Russia narrative.] Could it be that the Republicans are just as eager to demonize
Russia, that they need an enemy to justify their war economy? Trump is expendable. Their real
target is Putin. They'd like to replace him with Khodarkovsky so they can once more rape
Russia as they did in the 1990's.
Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans
WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans are stepping up efforts to challenge Christine Blasey
Ford's credibility by confronting her with a sworn statement from a former boyfriend who took
issue with a number of assertions she made during testimony before the Judiciary Committee
The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a
friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath.
Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford,
was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was
looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam," the man said in
the statement. "Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped
McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."
He added that she never told him about a violent encounter with Judge Kavanaugh. "It
strikes me as odd it never came up in our relationship," Mr. Merrick told the newspaper. "But
I would never try to discredit what she says or what she believes." "During our time dating,
Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault,
harassment, or misconduct," he wrote. "Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
Mr. Merrick took issue with Dr. Blasey's professed fear of flying and of confined spaces,
noting that they once traveled around the Hawaiian islands in a propeller plane. "Dr. Ford
never indicated a fear of flying," he wrote. "To the best of my recollection Dr. Ford never
expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit."
I wonder if the Toxic Cloud State (aka deep state) couldn't find anything relevant against
the nominee in the 10+ years of private comm data they have on him (and on all of us), or do
they favor him, despite being a Trump nominee, because of his not caring about the 4th
Something to think about.
Brian , October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm
You want something to think about ? If there's nothing damming about this nominee, why did
the committee withhold 100,000 pages of information about him ? Or why you support a nominee
for the highest court in the land who lies at the drop of a hat (2 that can be proven with
his last conformation hearing) ?
xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:30 pm
Here's what I think – that this is an attempt to destroy someone with an accusation
– it's about the power to do that.
If he can proven to have lied in his last confirmation hearing, then why isn't that what
they're using to defeat him, instead of an unsupported accusation from 35 yrs ago. There's
good reason to believe this accusation is part of a well planned conspiracy and is full of
I think his lack of support of the 4th amendment is itself a good enough reason to reject
his nomination instead of this feminist liberal attempt to destroy someone with an
I think there's EVIDENCE plainly available to defeat him. Defeating him on the basis of an
accusation is what they're trying because that suits what this really about – the power
to destroy with an emotionalized accusation. That's power that undermine the law, politics,
everyday ethical behavior and normal humn relationships.
Rob , October 3, 2018 at 7:12 pm
That about sums it up. We're making fools of ourselves to the world.
Smear, malign, ridicule a man, then when he succumbs emotionally smear him for not being
able to control his emotions. Not a bad strategy. Attacking him because of his performance,
even as a teenager for goodness sake, and finding that was likely to fail, the enemies of
what they think he represents have attacked his emotional stability.
Having said that, I think Cavanaugh could have used some coaching before he rightly
attacked his accusers on the Committee. He. being human, I can sympathize with his attack but
his attackers are a cold and cunning lot and they finally found something they could use to
do what they wanted, to keep a Trump nominee off the Court.
That Trump will be willing to throw him under the bus is not beyond imagining.
As to Ms. Ford, however useful she was, she will suffer from the continuing glare of the
spotlight as the inconsistencies in her story unravel and her personal life is dissected over
If she is instrumental in keeping Cavanaugh off the Court, she will have proved quite
useful to those who went after Cavanaugh. That she is also a victim means little to the
scoundrels that used her.
JoeSixPack , October 3, 2018 at 11:38 am
"That she is also a victim means little to the scoundrels that used her."
Excellent point. Neither Democrats nor Republicans care. This is all political theater. No
one is interested in the truth.
Trump is a huge middle finger to the entire system especially the GOP and Bush cabal..The
more outrageous he was the better they liked it.My guess.
Lucius Patrick , October 3, 2018 at 10:54 am
Yes, the great Obama, who bombed more countries and dropped more bombs, than Bush and
Cheney; who sold more military weapons to foreign countries than any president in history.
Who backed an illegal in Ukraine and restarted the Cold War. That Obama?
Everybody needs to call the republican and democrat senators of your state and tell them
confirm Bret Kavenaugh based on his opinion on the record that bulk NSA spying is not a
violation of the 4th Amendment. That makes him a traitor who does not uphold the
Constitution. This dog and pony show is a study in distraction. A 2015 Pew research study
found the majority of Americans, Republican, Democrat and Independent voters, oppose NSA bulk
May 22, 2018 – Uploaded by The View
In an interview with the ladies of 'The View' James Clapper told another lie about his
previous lies about
Knomore , October 2, 2018 at 10:19 pm
What we've learned in these days is that it does not matter one whit if what you charge is
false; the mainstream media, in league with the Democrat Party, have mastered this to
perfection. No: What matters is lobbing something -- filth works best because it sticks best
-- at someone, especially if the latter person is someone you want to discredit in some way
-- any way -- possible.
I'm having a large problem with Lauria's article, admit I did not read past the first
paragraph. My excuse is that we are all on emotional overload in the aftermath of Ford's
juvenile presentation before the Judiciary Committee. What most of us suspected at the
time–that these were false charges–was largely substantiated first by what we
heard and then by Ms. Mitchell, the sex abuse professional who interviewed Ford. Witnessing
the Democrats, Feinstein especially, and then the dispassionate Kamala H., smile beseechingly
while encouraging this preposterous display left yet more funky smells in the room.
Now we are asked to forget all that and engage in a new game: This one is called Double
jeopardy? Triple jeopardy ? It goes like this:
You take a baseball bat and slam someone over the head with it as hard as you can. Next
step is to stand there and critique that person from every angle imaginable, but mostly for
having the audacity to stand up and try to defend himself.
Shame on all of us.
JR_Leonardi , October 2, 2018 at 10:16 pm
I shall be amazed if the censor permits this comment to post.
Joe Lauria does not deserve to be the Editor of the journal Robert Parry established and,
for years, edited honorably and professionally.
Joe Lauria disgraces Consortium News with his part-fraudulent, all toxic propaganda
"article" that clashes with near-all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (rather than the baseless,
thoroughly discredited accusations and the vile-politics-engendered "belief" of the
Democrat-suborned false accusations).
One must wonder whether her, Lauria, would feel and express rage and show tears were HE
the object of vicious, fraudulent character-assassination like that suffered by Judge
I contemn Joe Lauria as I contemned Joe McCarthy and contemn now the Democrat Party's
members of Congress and the Clintonian DNC.
Joe Lauria needs to resign his Editorship.
exiled off mainstreet , October 4, 2018 at 4:21 am
Lauria's knowledge of Kavanaugh's real historic role explains why he finds the baseless
allegations against him believable. One has to examine his entire record, which is admirable,
rather than going to the mattresses because he makes a mistake here. The fact is, Kavanaugh
is a disgrace for reasons other than the ones the democrats are proferring because as an
integral part of a corrupt militarist imperialist power structure intent on continuing their
total domination of everything, they don't want to deal with the real failings of Kavanaugh
as a corrupt opponent of the rule of law. I agree that it is unfortunate that Lauria accepts
this largely debunked story influenced by his knowledge of unrelated worse stories that are
"Trump had entered the White House with a clear commitment to ending U.S.
military interventions, based on a worldview in which fighting wars in
the pursuit of military dominance has no place. In the last speech of
his "victory tour" in December 2016, Trump vowed,
"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we knew nothing about, that we
be involved with." Instead of investing in wars, he said, he wouldinvest in rebuilding
America's crumbling infrastructure."
"Trump retorted angrily that the generals were "the architects of this mess" and that they
have were "making it worse," by asking him to add more troops to "something I don't believe
Then Trump folded his arms and declared, "I want to get out. And you're telling me the
answeris to get deeper in."
Jean, you make a good point that Trump's taking down the American Empire, but not as
you've envisioned it? Trump's Trade Wars & Financial terrorism in the form of Tarriffs
& Sanctions are forcing other Nations to consolidate & start the process of the
"dedollarisation" of their economies to transition away from the US Dollar & it's removal
as the Worlds reserve currency! Alternatives to the US Swift Banking system are well on the
way, further isolating the USA's role in punishing Nations through financial & economic
warfare via the Banking system! Once this happens, the entire "ponzi scheme" of the most
indebted Nation on Earth will collapse in on itself like a Black hole! And Trump is
accelerating this demise of America as a Hegemonic Empire! And for your information & in
direct contradiction of his campaign promises,Trump is not withdrawing America from meddling
in the Middle East, he's appeasing the Deepstate & outsourcing this Foreign Policy of
Regime change & Resources theft of other Countries, to Warmongers like Mattis &
Pompeo who are maintaining the status quo of the US as a unwanted, Foreign Invader by hanging
on in Afghanistan; Iraq & Syria, like a limpett crab attaching itself to a rock! Trump is
unable to extricate the US because the US cant't or won't face the reality, that they have
achieved nothing, despite wasting trillions of dollars of warmongering with zero results to
show for the horrendous cost of the invasions! So they will remain over there, till hell
freezes over, as a face saving measure to avoid the inevitable humiliation of defeat like in
Vietnam, knowing that the endless Wars conducted by them has been a utter, catastrophic
disaster caused by arrogance, ignorance & supreme hubris by a out of control, lawless
"Whataboutism" is a call out of hypocrisy and was first used by a poor Carpenter who said
to "First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the
speck out of your brother's eye."
We wouldnt even have Trump if not for Hillary.
rosemerry , October 3, 2018 at 3:57 pm
All this "evidence" business is interesting when we observe that since March, the USA
media and government has accepted the word of UK PM Theresa May that the Russians have
poisoned two Salisbury residents with novichok under the orders of Vladimir Putin himself. NO
evidence of any kind has been produced, the EU and NATO gang were called in, over 100
diplomats were expelled and the Russians had no right of reply at all, and the whole saga
continues. These days, who cares about evidence?
In this case, there is abundance evidence over thirty years that Kavanaugh is "a corporation
masquerading as a judge", to use Ralph Nader's words. He cares not at all for workers,
environment, poor people, ordinary citizens. Find a real candidate, if any come forward.
Cratylus , October 2, 2018 at 4:58 pm
There are good reasons for opposing Kavanaugh – and they were obvious to begin with.
Lauria and others have summarized them nicely.
BUT with all those things known, he was on his way to confirmation. The lesson is that the
Elite, Dems and GOP, are just fine with Kavanaugh. If it were a Dem essentially like him the
voting would be Partisan, just the other way.
Some would prefer a woman but they had their day in approving Gina Haspel. No big fight
was involved; and we know what she has done dwarfs even the worst accusations against
Then the last minute accusations, and everyone got interested. There are many serious
issues here – sexual assault being one of them as Lauria points out. But they are
unproven and alleged against a 17 year old. So the discussion shifted to temperament and
respect for Senators. Do they deserve respect? I do not think so. And now on to drinking
habits of the high school and college boy. Down, down, down.
What is motivating 99% of the people glued to this issue? It is Partisan Identity Politics
– in fact worse, it is Tabloid Identity Politics. Meanwhile tensions are soaring on the
Russian border, in Middle East and in the South China Sea; mass incarceration stares us in
the face; health care degenerates ever further -and we have to debate Kavanaugh's alcoholism
and "temperament." What a sad excuse for real political discussion. In fact I find I am
getting annoyed at myself for even weighing in on this. I
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:44 pm
Exactly. We are now reading in the 'papers of record' articles which not long ago
would have appeared in supermarket checkout tabloids. But since they are in
the Big Papers, they now have an aura of authenticity lacking in tabloid spreads.
It's practically impossible to find useful information on any topic in the Big Papers.
Deltaeus , October 2, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our
civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.
Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe
can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that.
Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological
reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just
some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see
his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone
can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with
Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you
can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you
will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised
idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.
For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's
child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by
her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only
imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this
situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize
to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he
started strongly resembling his dad (her son).
False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.
Hans Zandvliet , October 2, 2018 at 4:06 pm
I think the whole Kavanaugh back-and-forth-mud-slinging excersize is just an irrelevant
side-show to distract us from what really matters.
Justice in the USA is already dead; they only forgot to burry the corpse.
So why fighting over it? That;s the point: it's all a distraction from the twin-brother of
"Justice", called "Democracy" who's on life support, too. And by fighting over the already
dead corpse of Justice, the Deep State can let the death of Democracy go unnoticed.
In fact, I believe the present USA government system is way beyond repair. Corporate
corruption has taken over all government institutions, so there are no institutional
proceedings left to fight this corrupt system. The only way left is a revolution to overthrow
the corrupt system and start anew.
It will not be pleasant, but that's the ride the USA has embarked on.
GofSMQ , October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm
I believed Kavanaugh, did not believe Ford. Her fake crying reminded me of Susan Smith. If
no woman had ever lied and made false accusations about a man Lauria might have ground to
stand on, but sadly it happens, and thus no human being should be automatically given
credibility over someone else simply because of their gender, race, or other immutable
That said, Kavanaugh is unqualified due to his involvement with the Federalist Society,
Starr, and the Bush/Cheney regime. His background shows he is a threat to Constitutional and
natural rights. IMO He is as partisan as the people who hope to destroy him.
Joe Tedesky , October 2, 2018 at 12:44 pm
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers give a blow by blow review of Judge Kavanaugh's partisan
Here is a
list of some of the serious allegations about Brett Kavanaugh which have nothing to do
with identity politics. When are we going to publicly discuss these issues?
Advocating torture, aiding war criminals, Big Brother-level surveillance the real issues
go far beyond whether or not Brett liked to party and drink beer and get aggressive in high
school. He's basically a henchman for Bush and will be one for Trump, and far-right
authoritarians for years to come.
This is the real problem with Brett Kavanaugh. Why do the Democrats make it all about He
Said v She Said identity politics? Is the Democratic party more concerned about firing up the
masses for the coming midterm elections than about Kavanaugh's record of assisting
authoritarianism? Certainly looks this way
Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 am
As I said in the McGovern thread:
The reason for that is simple: Democrats have no power to stop Kavanaugh's appointment.
That depends entirely on getting a couple Republicans to vote No, and they would not be
impressed by the lines of argument you (and others) have suggested.
Oh, I think the answer is clear and simple. The Democratic party is in favor of
authoritarian imperialism just as much as the Republican party is, and I think this whole
circus is a dog and pony show to distract everyone from the fact everyone in the show is a
criminal with skeletons. Happy Halloween!
Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Well, the difference between the parties is the that the Democrats pretend to opposed to
the Plutocracy, while the Republicans brag about promoting the Plutocracy. That is why the
Dems know it is useless, when the Repubs are in power, to oppose Kavanaugh on the grounds of
his being wholly owned.
Stumpy , October 3, 2018 at 3:28 am
You nailed it. Further, the bonus comes in when the Kavanaugh appointment enrages the
groundswell of #metoo assaultees into a even greater force of male career destruction at the
hands of vengeful goddesses.
The Democrats aren't really Resisting. They are playing the identity politics. It's the
only thing they stand for that's different from the Republicans. Here are examples of their
happiness with authoritarianism and imperialism. They even like it when Trump does it.:
If Justice Kavanaugh had his way, mass collections of Americans' private data would be
routine in spite of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
"The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the
sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored..."
Has anybody asked the Judge about his support for John Yoo, the prominent defender of the
violations of the US Constitution and Cheney's protege? How about the international law, human
rights, torture, illegal wars of aggression? -- Nope. The Dems and other MeToo are not
interested in such trifles.
It is interesting that the name "Dick Cheney the Traitor" is gradually getting a name
recognition on a par with Goebbels & Mengele.. What a miserable subhuman being Dick Cheney
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a
person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
Christine Ford claims her difficulties in her first years in college were due to "trauma"
from the attempted rape. A professor of psychology, Ford used impressive big words, (iirc)
stating that endocrine imprints such traumatic memories on the hippocampus.
So does alcohol.
Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high
school and in college?
"... Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened. ..."
"... So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. ..."
A former FBI agent and lifelong friend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford allegedly
pressured a woman to change her statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by
Kavanaugh in 1982, reports the
Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI
investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate
Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that
she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had
also reports that after the FBI sent their initial report on the Kavanaugh
allegations to the White House,
they sent the White House and Senate an additional package
of information which included text messages from McLean to Keyser
McLean's lawyer, David Laufman, categorically denied that his client pressured Keyser, saying in
a statement: "Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser's
account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh
is absolutely false."
Ms. Keyser's lawyer on Sept. 23 said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that
she had no recollection of attending a party with Judge Kavanaugh
, whom she
said she didn't know.
That same day, however, she told the Washington Post that she
believed Dr. Ford
. On Sept. 29, two days after Dr. Ford and the judge testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms.
Keyser's attorney sent a letter to the panel saying
his client wasn't refuting Dr. Ford's account and that she believed it but couldn't corroborate
Keyser's admission to the FBI - which is subject to perjury laws - may influence the Senate's
upcoming confirmation debates. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
said that he found the most
significant material in the FBI report to be statements from people close to Ford who wanted to
corroborate her account and were "sympathetic in wishing they could, but they could not."
In his testimony last week, Judge Kavanaugh sought to use Ms. Keyser's initial statement to
undercut his accuser. "
Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted
by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers
Two days later, Ms. Keyser's lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Ms.
Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes
Dr. Ford's account." Mr. Walsh added: "However,
the simple and unchangeable truth is
that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in
In last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford claimed she never told
Keyser about the assault, saying "She didn't know about the event. She was downstairs during the
event and I did not share it with her," and adding that she didn't "expect" that Keyser would
remember the "very unremarkable party."
"Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and
getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take
care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et
cetera." said Ford.
About that polygraph
On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing
letter to Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence
related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took,
her ex-boyfriend of six years
refuted statements she made
under oath last week.
Grassley writes: "The full details of Dr. Ford's polygraph are particularly important because
the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr.
Ford's, stating that
he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph
When asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or
advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph,
Dr. Ford replied, "Never."
statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results."
McLean issued a Wednesday statement rejecting the ex-boyfriend's claims that she was coached on
how to take a polygraph test.
First, McLean signed a letter from members of the Holton-Arms class of 1984 supporting Ford's
Next, we look at McLean's career:
Monica Lee McLean was admitted to the California Bar in 1992, the same year Ms Ford's
boyfriend stated he began a six-year relationship with her best friend
. The address
for the current inactive California Law License is now listed as *"Rehoboth Beach, DE". [*Note*
remember this, it becomes more relevant later.] -
Sundance notes that "Sometime between 2000 and 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean transferred to the
Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office; where she shows up on various
reports, including media reports, as a spokesperson for the FBI." and that "
After 2003, Ms.
Monica L McLean is working with the SDNY as a Public Information Officer for the FBI New York Field
Office, side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara
Here's where things get really interesting:
Ms. Monica Lee McLean and Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford are life-long friends; obviously they
have known each other since their High School days at Holton-Arms; and both lived together as
"roommates" in California after college. Their close friendship is cited by Ms. Fords former
boyfriend of six years.
Ms. Monica McLean retired from the FBI in 2016; apparently right after the presidential
Her current residence is listed at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
aligns with public records and the serendipitous printed article.
where did Ms. Blasey-Ford testify she was located at the time she wrote the
letter to Dianne Feinstein, accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh
MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the -- July 30th of
MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?
FORD: I did.
MITCHELL: And I -- since it's dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?
FORD: I believe so. I -- it sounds right.
I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time
I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed
MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?
FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes
sense, because I wrote it from there.
MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate? FORD: I'll take a minute to read it.
So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long
BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE .
Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. -
Thus, it appears that Blasey Ford was with McLean for four days leading up to the actual writing
of the letter, from July 26th to July 30th.
Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms.
McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former
friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?
Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael
Bromwich, begin to make more sense?
Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a
different meaning or make more sense, now?
Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE .. could it be that Mrs.
McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to
grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor?
Were Ford and McLean working together to take out Kavanaugh?
In September we reported that an audio recording purportedly from a July conference call
suggests that Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh wasn't simply a reluctant claim that Diane Feinstein sat on until the 11th hour.
The recording features
a former Clinton and Obama White House official and Democratic operative who advised Anita Hill
during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and who was revealed on Thursday as an adviser to Ford by
Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of
sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers,
is being advised by Democratic
operative Ricki Seidman
Seidman, a senior principal at TSD Communications, in the past worked as an investigator for
Sen. Ted Kennedy, and was involved with Anita Hill's decision to testify against Supreme Court
Nominee Clarence Thomas. -
"While I think at the outset, looking at the numbers in the Senate, it's not extremely likely
that the nominee can be defeated," says Seidman. "I would absolutely withhold judgement as the
process goes on. I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance."
What's more, the recording makes clear that
even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, Democrats
can use the doubt cast over him during midterms.
"Over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it's
possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee...
whether or not it
ultimately defeats the nominee, it will help people understand why it's so important that they vote
and the deeper principles that are involved in it.
Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist
somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.
Granted, we don't know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the
Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That's because, well, she must never be questioned.
Questioning the left's latest sacred cow is forbidden. Bovine
Republicans blindly obey.
I happened to have covered and thoroughly researched the "recovered
memory ruse," in 1999. Contrary to the trend, one of my own heroes is not Christine
Blah-Blah Ford, but a leading world authority on memory, Elizabeth Loftus.
Professor Loftus, who straddles two professorships -- one in law, the other in psychology --
had come to Vancouver, British Columbia, to testify on behalf of a dedicated Richmond educator,
a good man, who had endured three trials, the loss of a career and financial ruin because of
the Crown's attempts to convict him of sexual assault based on memories recovered in
I attended. I was awed.
Over decades of research, Loftus has planted many a false memory in the minds of her
research subjects, sometimes with the aid of nothing more than a conversation peppered with
"A tone of voice, a phrasing of a question, subtle non-verbal signals, and expressions of
boredom, impatience or fascination" -- these are often all it takes to plant suggestions in the
malleable human mind.
Loftus does not question the prevalence of the sexual abuse of children or the existence of
traumatic memories. What she questions are memories commonly referred to as repressed:
"Memories that did not exist until someone went looking for them."
Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that
has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.
Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory is
without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof
for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies which rely
on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.
Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?
Even in the absence of outside influence, memory deteriorates rapidly. "As time goes by,"
writes Loftus in her seminal book, "The Myth of Repressed Memories," "the weakened memories are
increasingly vulnerable to post-event information."
What we see on TV, read and hear about events is incorporated into memory to create an
unreliable amalgam of fact and fiction.
After an extensive investigation, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a ban
prohibiting its members from using any method to recover memories of child abuse. Memory
retrieval techniques, say the British guidelines, are dangerous methods of persuasion.
"Recovered memories," inveighed Alan Gold, then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers
Association, "are joining electroshock, lobotomies and other psychiatric malpractice in the
Not that you'd know it from the current climate of sexual hysteria, but the courts in the
U.S. had responded as well by ruling to suppress the admission of all evidence remembered under
Altogether it seems as clear in 2018, as it was in 1999 :
Memories that have been excavated during therapy have no place in a court of law. Or, for that
matter, in a Senate Committee that shapes the very same justice system.
She can't remember the house she was in or how she got there/got home because her
hippocampus was suffering alcohol poisoning.
She did poorly in subsequent high school and in early years in college because her
hippocampus was pickled.
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person
drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
Mercer's assessment seems to have been skewed in order to promote Mercer's 1999 work on
the Loftus case...
The whole hippocampus explanation made her sound like she's been talking to a therapist, but
then she herself is a psychologist so she probably doesn't need a therapist to help her
'recover' that memory.
I think the key thing here are the witnesses. None recalled such a party ever taking
place. Her best friend said not only did she not remember the party, but she had never met
Kavanaugh. If she had been ditched by Ford that night and was left in a house with 2
potential rapists, don't you think she'd remember and talked it over with her the next day?
That just made her story fall apart.
Interesting photographic choice for such an article. Trial, whether in a court of law, or
merely in terms of destroying someone's life in the media, cannot be about what someone
believes, or can be made to believe, but must be about what the evidence can reveal to be
true. Where, when and why did we ever lose sight of that?
The Dems (dims) wouldn't dare attack the criminal Kavanaugh on the actual facts because it
would implicate their goddess Hillary. There are no clean hands at the worm farm at DC, that
just doesn't happen.
Garbage! Who cares what you remember, or do not remember.
Main thing here is that she remembered to the rest of her life to be careful about the
And also Miss Ford (If she did not lie) must have noticed the house that she would not go
into that house ever,
Let's not forget the "false memory" debacles of the 1990s with the McMartin preschool and
Wenatchee Washington preschool cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes that they
could not have possible committed.
In the McMartin case, the problem was overzealous parents who believed their childrens'
fantasies, and got overzealous "child protective services" caseworkers involved. Questionable
tactics to elicit "correct" responses from the children were used. Rewards, such as ice cream
were used when the children gave the "correct" response. The children were badgered by these
"professionals" until the proper answers were given. Many innocent peoples' lives were ruined
as a result.
The Wenatchee debacle was fueled by a rogue detective, who saw child abuse under every rock
and was determined to get convictions, the truth be damned.
The same tactics as in the McMartin case were used to elicit the correct responses from the
In both cases, the mantra that "children cannot lie" was used, along with tactics that would
be unacceptable today (but are still being used).
After a long conversation last night with drunken friends, me being the sober one of course,
I had only one beer cuz I'm a good girl, but I can't recall what was said or how many of us
were in the room. Wait, oh yeah.
We all decided that the seeming wussy response by Republicans was a strategy. Weren't they
all also being accused? If Grassley hadn't bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and her
increasingly violent democrat extremist enablers and all of their ethically challenged dumb
followers, they would have appeared uncaring. They gave the Feinstein and Ford crowds serious
consideration – no one can truthfully say otherwise.
There really isn't much one can say about a woman, or a man, who claimed they were
assaulted or abused. Proper respect must be given and investigations must be made. We all
know Ford is a liar now. Almost any real victim of sexual assault can recall the details of
I think Republicans played it right all along. If she was not deceptive, it would have
The whole affair was the same as watching Justice Channel homicide detectives patiently
wait for their prime suspect to speak until she slipped up and incriminated herself. No dna
test for Ford though. In fact, no evidence at all. In the end, she proved herself incredible
and all of her apoplectic supporters went off the rails and are making things worse for real
victims of sexual abuse.
The little girl act made Ford look insane.
Now, the unfunniest comedian in the world, Amy Shumer, who, let's face it, only got fame
due to her Uncle Chuck, is rallying the rest of the moonbats, reactionaries, and liars, aka
Democrat nutcases to rally and resist. Resist. Bunch of clowns think they have something to
resist rather than working to rebuild a party and find solutions to their problems. Hopefully
the democrat party will splinter apart and crawl away like the worms they are.
Anyone on the fence about Trump has now almost definitely jump to one side or the other.
Elections will show most people will deny democrats their ambition to destroy what's left of
The 'recovered memory' witch trials back then ruined many lives. The hysteria featured a wide
cast of characters including reckless and totally irresponsible 'therapists' who, for
whatever weird reason pushed gullible customers into believing these false induced illusions,
the troubled women (all women?Why?) who went on to make false accusations and all the true
believers in the form of prosecutors, police, judges and members of the public who accepted
this lunacy. Loftus deserves credit for having been one of the few people willing to stand up
and take the heat, going against this wave of hysteria. Seems like the US always has had
these bubbles of hysteria and panic since the days of the Salem witch trials. This person
Ford has been getting all this unwarranted fawning treatment, being continually called
'Doctor' and 'Professor' which, while true, isn't the usual treatment accorded to people who
have a Phd in one of the social 'sciences' or have jobs as professors. Nobody I've ever met
with those qualifications cared to be continually addressed by title. On the one hand this
person is some empowered example to all women, an esteemed 'Doctor Professor' who jets around
the world to surf the waves at exotic locales yet claims to have some fear of lying when
called in and starts to cry when she recalls being laughed at almost four decades ago.
Looking at it briefly she leaves the impression of being just plain screwy as well as being a
person who lies a lot where lies and facts are interwoven so that one can't be sure what's
what. What a circus this is.
"... A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty. ..."
"... This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations. ..."
A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that
Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be
extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that
cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not
This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller
to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory
information favoring the accused corporations.
As any reference to this case can't seem to be found, can anyone help with info as to the
present status of the case?
I agree Kavanaugh is a warmonger and has
probably committed perjury many times. The trouble is, if he is denied confirmation in the
present circumstanes, it will amount to a victory for the feminists' witch hunt against men,
and it will do nothing to defeat the war agenda. The next nominee will be just as much a
1. The judgment of anyone who believes Christine Ford has to be
questioned. Her senate performance was a series of holes held together with emotion. If she
had been questioned as aggressively as Kavanaugh, she would have melted quicker than brie at
a beach party.
2. That she is a fraud does not in any way mean that Kavanaugh was/is honest or that he is
appropriate material for Supreme Court; I agree: he is not, he is deeply flawed. The pity and
the tragedy is that his flaws are not being discussed on their merits: the fact that he made
his living as a lawyer and a citizen by supporting the George Bush administration, which
participated in war crimes, is enough to disqualify him.
3. But US government, from Supreme Court to presidency to the entire Congress, have been
havens for liars who lied to the American people in order to wage war; they get monuments and
institutes, not jail cells:
–> Woodrow Wilson was a notorious womanizer, and a weak toady. One of his
liaison's threatened to release love letters unless he paid her $40,000. Zionist fanatic
Samuel Untermeyer paid the sum, in exchange for the appointment of Louis Brandeis to Supreme
Brandeis "lied" insofar as he used his elevated stature to promote the Zionist cause. Wilson was manipulated into signing off on the Balfour Declaration, then drawing USA into
–> FDR (who was in the company of his lover when he died) lied to get USA into
–> George H W Bush sanctioned lies to involve USA in Persian Gulf war: "babies in
incubators . ."
–> George W Bush had Condi Rice and Colin Powell to do his lying for him, to
involve USA in war against Iraq.
–> Schumer pledged he would harry Trump "six ways 'til Sunday" -- to force him to
wage war on Iran. Schumer and the Israel firsts don't give a tinker's dam about Kavanaugh OR
Ford; their method is to keep Trump on a short leash and to make it impossible to rule other
than in a way that achieve their goals, which are similar to Wilson and FDR: with them, the
zionist goals were to destroy Germany and Palestinians for the sake of Zionists; wrt Trump,
the goal is to complete the fragmentation of the ME and destroy Iran, for the sake of
"... Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post ..."
"... The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense ..."
"... One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C., promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States of America. ..."
"... Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said: "We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign, Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. ..."
A new book about Hillary Clinton's last campaign for president – Shattered
, by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes – has gotten a lot of publicity since it appeared two weeks ago. But major
media have ignored a revealing passage near the end of the book.
Soon after Clinton's defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the
authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters
to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering
the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of
Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant – with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright
A lavishly-funded example is the "Moscow Project," a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for
American Progress Action Fund. It's led by Neera Tanden, a
self-described "loyal soldier" for Clinton
who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center's board includes several billionaires.
The "Moscow Project" is expressly inclined to go over the top, aiming to help normalize ultra-partisan conjectures as supposedly
factual. And so, the homepage of the "Moscow Project" prominently
declares: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia's actions are
a significant and ongoing cause for concern."
Let's freeze-frame how that sentence begins: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin." It's a jaw-dropping claim; a preposterous
Echoes of such tactics can be heard from many Democrats in Congress and from allied media. Along the way, no outlet has been more
in sync than MSNBC, and no one on the network has been more promotional of the Russia-runs-Trump meme than Rachel Maddow,
tirelessly promoting the line and sometimes connecting dots in
Glenn Beck fashion
to the point of journalistic malpractice.
Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As
the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those
debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen – 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 ."
After Trump's election triumph, the top tier of Clinton strategists quickly moved to seize as much of the narrative as they could,
surely mindful of what George Orwell observed: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the
past." After all, they hardly wanted the public discourse to dwell on Clinton's lack of voter appeal because of her deep ties to
Wall Street. Political recriminations would be much better focused on the Russian government.
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up
the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post opinion
article : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with
us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."
The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public
will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who
are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather
than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense.
Tone deaf hardly describes the severe political impairment of those who insist that denouncing Russia will be key to the Democratic
Party's political fortunes in 2018 and 2020. But the top-down pressure for conformity among elected Democrats is enormous and effective.
One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C.,
promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an
article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States
of America. "
Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That
came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said:
"We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign,
Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. "
You might think that Wall Street, big banks, hugely funded lobbyists, fat-check campaign contributors, the fossil fuel industry,
insurance companies, military contractors and the like are calling the shots in Washington. Maybe you didn't get the memo.
"... Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh. ..."
"... in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls." ..."
The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her
own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions. So much
so, in fact, that Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI
investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh.
U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. 0
A criminal referral should be sent to the FBI/DOJ regarding the
apparently false affidavit signed by Julie Swetnick that was
submitted to the Senate by @MichaelAvenatti.
12:37 PM-Oct 2, 2018
Q? 25.9K Q 13K people are talking about this О
The threat of a probe into his own client did not daunt the pop lawyer, who on
Wednesday morning tweeted that "we
still have yet to hear anything from the FBI despite a new witness coming forward &
submitting a declaration last night. We now have multiple witnesses that support the
allegations and they are all prepared to be interviewed by the FBI. Trump's "investigation" is
And, in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti
released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett
Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally
abusive toward girls."
"... It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later. ..."
"... Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role. ..."
"... I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig. ..."
"... As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge. ..."
"... Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did! ..."
"... What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis. ..."
"... Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious. ..."
"... you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more. ..."
"... Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father. ..."
Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape (at least, not by Ford).
He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with
claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape.
In a prurient and shallow swamp of false-piety and sanctimony (i.e., US society and its
political class in particular), that is thought to be germane to his fitness for the job (of
which, more in a few sentences' time).
I don't have a dog in this fight: I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the
US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas -laden theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
That has corollaries:
anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the
perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.
So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is
nothing more than light entertainment.
It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if
Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to
juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim)
are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a
drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later.
But here's the thing: this dude wants to be part of a life-tenured clique that arrogated to
itself the right to call the shots on the final jurisprudential stage in the US system up to
and including matters of constitutional import. As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn). The
hubris involved in wanting to be on that court is an invitation to nemesis
And to quote Brick Top (from the movie "Snatch"):
Do you know what 'Nemesis' means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by
an appropriate agent – personified in this case by a 'orrible cunt: me.
If this was going to play out Hellenically, this controversy will result in the nomination
failing, and Kavanaugh will move on to catharsis and eventually metanoia ; but
this being 21st century America, he will be confirmed and will go on to do his masters'
Now the question of actual fitness for purpose.
Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives
(i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the
hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the
However, since the SCOTUS-J role is just to be a lifetime lackey for the party what brung
you to the dance he's exactly what his side of politics ordered.
 Like de la Rochfoucauld (especially Maxim 237), Stern and Shaftesbury, I have an
extremely dim view of gravitas . As Shaftesbury said Gravitas is the very essence of imposture . ( Characteristics , p. 11, vol.
What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes?
We must never be allowed to forget there is a government in our lives to the point where it
starts to feel like a family member.
There are two things I cant stand:
Cockroaches, and prep school pricks that go on to be frat boy fucks, and then on to
lawyers, who then become so self entitled that they honestly believe they are chosen by god
to decide for others. Nasty creatures all of them.
As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally
wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).
You left out.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in
particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden
theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
Very eloquently and succinctly stated!
anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the
perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.
So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is
nothing more than light entertainment.
There is one aspect of this farce that does deserve some merit, from my perspective. And
that is the part where we get to watch more of the unhinged, apoplectic, butt-hurt,
aneurysm-popping hysterics of the progressive left. It's like more of those tears of
existential angst from all those castrating Hillary supporters anticipating their big win,
only to have it snatched away at the crucial moment by the big, blonde white guy who likes
women and cruelly mocks their messiah.
Watching Hillary psychologically implode is still one of my most sublime pleasures, even
today. It's the gift that keeps on giving
This is a curious and confusing spectacle. I don't think he's a good pick since like all
Supreme "Justices" he's a Deep State sponsored toady with little respect for the US
Constitution. But the Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump, who
they are tying to oust even though he does whatever they demand. Perhaps they worry that
Trump may suddenly rebel.
One wonders why Republican Senate leaders allowed this circus to form. When allegations of
drunken misconduct arose shortly before the vote, they should have dismissed the matter and
moved on, noting there were no police reports or arrests involved, and all this occurred when
he was a minor. Case closed! Most Americans consider groping and unwanted kisses by teenagers
to be of poor taste remedied with a slap or kick in the shin. It is not "sexual assault."
Or perhaps they chose to allow the looney part of the Democratic Party to run wild knowing
they would unwittingly hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. Or maybe this
is a Deep State media diversion to keep the social justice warriors busy with an unimportant
issue, so they don't protest Deep State wars, ever growing military spending, soaring budget
deficits, or our dysfunctional health care system. Encourage them debate and protest what
some guy did as a drunken teenager for the next few weeks and fill our "news" programs with
related BS so real issues are avoided during the election campaigns.
Yeah. Liberals make much of the virtue of erasing a minor's record once they turn 18.
"It's a clean slate. A chance to start over again with a reputation unblemished by youthful
folly and mistakes. How can young Trey'Trayvontious grow up to become an aeronautical
engineer if, upon entering adulthood, he is handicapped by the burden of felonious assault,
burglary and attempted murder convictions?"
But when it comes to Kavanaugh??? No way. No forgetfulness, no forgiveness. What he did as
a minor, he will wear as a badge of shame throughout his adult life.
Is it even legal to consider what he did as a minor as having any bearing on his fitness
for this job? I'm seriously asking any parole officers or social workers out there who work
As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally
wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).
Then you must be a leftist ideologue.
In the Dredd Scott case the naturalization act of 1790 only extended citizenship to
"free white persons", so the court got it objectively right since they ruled in accordance
with existing law and didn't strike down or make law from the bench as too many power mad
federal judges do today.
Plessy v Ferguson is a closer call (because of the 14th amendment) but IMO the
court got it objectively right because the court only upheld de jure segregation with the
stipulation that public facilities must be equal in quality. And in doing so the court ruled
that the desires and wishes of blacks don't automatically supersede those of whites like
federal courts reflexively do today.
The great irony is that today blacks, not whites, are demanding racially segregated
dormitories, student orientations, facilities, graduations, schools, clubs, etc. and leftists
have no issue with that but will scream themselves hoarse about racism and white supremacy if
In Bush v Gore I'm not sure what pressing moral issue was at stake other than you
didn't like the court's decision, hence it was "immoral." Was SCOTUS supposed to allow
Florida to keep counting votes until Christmas?
I'd rather it be a bourgeois white guy with social markers indicating that he, like me,
has been a red-blooded American teenager rather than a foppish Bubble-boy nerd with no
theory of mind or a bitter lesbian hag
It's not the teenage indiscretions that should concern people – it's the obvious
temperament problem that manifested itself during his testimony.
Anyone who 'arcs up' the way Kavanaugh did, has no place in any judiciary, be he
ne'er so white and red-blooded: it shows that he is a narcissist.
I don't think he actually uttered the words " How dare you !", but it would
not surprise me if he had done so.
So I would prefer a non-narcissist lesbian hag or "Bubble-boy nerd" (as if
Kavanaugh did not grow up in a protective bubble! He exudes contempt for anyone outside of
his class nothing wrong with that, except if you're hearing death penalty appeals or
adjudicating on reproductive or sexual rights).
By way of stark contrast, I have a very good example of a decidedly non-bourgeois person
(who will be Chief Justice in my jurisdiction before he retires)
One of my close friends from university was made a judge of the Supreme Court (of
Victoria, Australia) in 2013.
He was a first-rate advocate (specialising in criminal defence) – another contrast
with Kavanaugh, who is a lifetime party/government apparatchik who has never tried a
Michael (for that is my old mate's name) was also a former logging truck driver who
returned to study in his mid-30s (having already had a family). He went to government schools
for his entire education – the first Supreme Court justice to have done so, a fact that
the Chief Justice remarked upon at his inauguration.
Despite having no pedigree, no connections, no Old Boys' (or Masonic) connections, he was
made QC at the earliest possible date (i.e., 10 years after he was called to the Bar).
He is also a witty bugger, and his default expression is a kind of half-smile, even now.
He was (and is) talented enough that he does not have to rely on gravitas : on several
instances he has cried in open court while recounting the facts of particularly tragic cases,
even as he was sentencing the perpetrators to jail. This is not a display of weakness: it's a
display of empathy – a weak man would be scared of the public reaction.
His robes sit heavy, but he still played "old-blokes' footy" after his elevation to the
And although I think he has some leftish tendencies, I could not say with any certainty
where his politics lie: when we were students together his economics was first-rate and
"rationalist" (he and I both got Reserve Bank cadetships – only 4 of which were awarded
Australia-wide in our year).
Now the reason I drop his name into the mix is that I can declare with absolute confidence
that if he was involved in a hearing of this type, there would be no displays of righteous
indignation, no partisan political commentary, no facial contortions, no spittle-flecked lips
in short, no displays of behaviour that indicate that he thinks that he is above reproach
simply by virtue of his background or his current station .
That 's the guy you want in your judiciary: you can't tell me that a nation of 300
million people – and a surfeit of lawyers – doesn't have a single lawyer like
OK, so that was a rhetorical trick on my part, because the US Supreme Court is only
open to people who went to Harvard or Yale Law (although Ginsberg got her JD at Columbia,
she was a transfer from Harvard).
And, of course, they must have a lifetime track record of opinions that align with the
party in power at the time of their nomination.
>>>>>>>>>>He is having a job interview for a government
sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet
the criteria for attempted rape. <<<<<<<<<<
She was two grades behind him and attended an all girl school in a different part of
So how is she someone he went to school with? I went to an all girl school (Catholic) and can't recall any boys I went to school
with. As a mother, I was interested in the distance of her home from the place of the party.
I gathered it was too far to walk to and walk home from, (especially at night). What did
she tell her parents were she had been? Her parents did not care she ran around at night like
that? At age 15. Not that Kavanaugh would be my choice.
Rape is a social construct. Some languages don't even have a word for it. Re Kavanaugh, who
knew that he was a serial gang rapist whose coast to coast crime wave has kept the country
secretly cowering in fear for the past 40 years? And thank goodness that we discovered just
in time that he also possesses emotions n a point of view. We can't have that on the SCOTUS!
I mean, where would we be if other Justices decided to have points of view n even did
interviews? Thank goodness that never ever happens, n all the current justices keep their
lips sealed n are completely neutral.
We don't know that her parents "did not care she ran around at night like that at age
Teenagers and even younger children disobey their parents' instructions, orders and
warnings all the time. Maybe Ms Ford was chronically disobedient, a difficult child from Day
One, and maybe (just opining here) that's why she was sent to an all-girls private school. I
sure know of such cases. Such attendance doesn't change the child's behavior or character,
but it gets them away from their peers in public school, which makes the parents believe
everything will now be alright with their naughty child.
Not everything is the parents' fault. Nurture can't always undo Nature. Indeed, it rarely
does in any deep, permanent sense. Just threaten and/or punish your children enough and then
they'll obey you – for the wrong reasons.
As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual
harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of
embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a
case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and
that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and
has now chosen to take this moment for revenge.
Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied
about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is
clear she did!
Once again, proof, facts and evidence, shows us all that you can't trust what people say,
especially hysterical women! History is replete with examples of how hysteria, especially by
women with a grudge, can destroy men lives. This nonsense, and it is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, by
Ford and her followers is nothing more than a bunch of pathetic individuals who've nothing in
their lives other than to be jealous and embittered of others all because they are all
failing in their own miserable, misbegotten lives. This is not about social justice, it is
just about people who can't accept their irrelevant position in society and need to destroy
others whom are make something of themselves.
Christine Ford is that lowest thing of womanhood; a bitter, delusional, man-hating female.
When in reality the only thing she really hates, is herself. Now she will get her well over
And what of Senator Feinstein? That modern incarnation of Reverend Samuel Paris (alla
Salem Witch Trials), what of her? She should be thrown out of the Senate, and allowed to
wither in the backwaters of the Deep Swamp, where she belongs!
Senator Feinstein you are a disgrace to Justice, the Senate, to Women, and above all,
to the Human Race! Go back to murky slimy depths of the swamp, where you belong!
Wholeheartedly agree with all your comments and adstructions. However, it would seem to me
that in 99% of cases, it really does not matter who gets elected or appointed to any office,
in the US or whichever other country.
What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and
assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the
moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any
compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous
Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never
realized that psychopathy is contagious.
I don't know Michael Croucher J but I know and have a high regard for the conservative
Attorney-General who appointed him (also, you may be interested to know the product only of
radically unfashionable non-government schools). I Googled for Michael Croucher and was
surprised to find how many of the items on the first page had him tearing up on the bench. I
suspect that he fits pretty well with his appointer's pretty strong law and order approach
though I don't remember what the attitude of the latter was to the introduction of victim
impact statements, inevitably not subject to cross examination for obvious enough reasons.
(Moi: I was never a fan for several reasons).
While internet anonymity frees us up to say more than we can know with arrogant confidence
I am surprised that you don't make the distinction between US judges with a Bill of Rights to
maximise the likelihood of value differences infecting their judgments (bolstered by life
tenure) and Australian judiciary much of which still honours Dixon CJ's "strict and complete
legalism" in the sense in which he meant it (in answer to complaints of "excessive legalism")
and maybe Blackburn J's excellent 1970s article on Judicial Method.
But you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone.
You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge
of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured
products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to
politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let
alone 15 years and more.
Another excellent comment, Krat' !
Re: Kav' "arc'ing up" I wonder whether that may have not been a carefully contrived piece of
theatre, directed at the so-called Trump "base" ? I don't know.
Re: the judge himself. I recall his public nomination. His intro by Trump, his evident
pleasure at nomination etc. However, his acceptance quickly segued into a modern version of
Mr Smith goes the Washington. He seriously emphasised what a great family man he is. His
little jokes with his daughters, coaching their basket ball team etc. The performance was
just so sincere, so real indeed, so slick & polished . What a great guy ! I
thought. Then I woke up – I'd been played .We're not talking about a great guy, we're
talking about a judicial job application for the highest court in the US.
Literally, a job for life.
The "sex" business, whether true or false has completely distracted US from the substantive
issue of whether this Judge, qua Judge is suitable for this role.
Your references to his whole "silver spoon"
history is largely indicative of the sex aspect. It goes to "character" at the least. It
should be considered but not as, in itself, determative.
Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally,
Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that
she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like
a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing
in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations.
She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father.
This bitch just reeks of MKUltra. It not only would explain so much of her recent actions,
it would also explain why she had 57 sex partners before starting college.
Most likely Ford was a MKUltra beta sex kitten, and that would also explain her current
positions at Standford. Stanford was a major center for MKUltra research and programming,
with Keasey and Owsley Stanley both being heavily involved in LSD research there as well as
in the forming of the mind-control masters of the Grateful Dead.
I do not think that even Bill Cosby raped anybody. All he had to do is promise the girl role
in next episode. And so by the time when Bill turned around and headed to liqueur cabinet
there she was on the bed naked with the feet pointing to the Heavens.
Basically the same story was with Weinstein.
You know women do not use their pussy only as a payment for full, they also use pussy as a
I really hate Trump and this country. He said it's a scary time for young men in this
country. I'm a young man and I've never met anyone in real life who was falsely accused of
sexual misconduct. The prospect isn't even on anyone's mind. No normal woman would do that.
Some politicians might get falsely accused, but that isn't something regular guys fear.
But I'll tell you who is under attack: white people, both men AND women. There were hardly
any white girls at my high school. Hot white girls are a disappearing breed in many cities
and towns all over this country because of mass immigration. And what has a fraud like Trump
done about that? Absolutely nothing. His immigration failures are the real war on white
But the little manbabies of the right will continue their hysteria and petty squabbles
with white women and even ally with non-white men against their own women. White people
divide and conquer themselves. The enemy doesn't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy
the show as whites fight each other instead of their own colonization and dispossession by
the Third World.
In the small high school I attended and from which graduated in 1960 were 4 girls who took-on
the entire football team more than once. There's no reason for me to believe the school I
attended was much different from any other public or private school. I could be wrong, but I
doubt it. The truth is that quite a few girls and women who are mentally disturbed will do
practically anything to acquire attention from males. It's always been that way, and always
I used to live in Communist country, where social scientist were pushing the idea that first
organized tribal societies were matriarchal. Than that today society is patriarchal.
Prevailing theories were that patriarchal society inevitably must revert back to matriarchal
I did not pay too much attention to it, and did seem to me that it was something strange.
Is this happening in US? I do not know!
Excellent article on the beautiful circus lifting the curtain on American politics. It's
always been this way, we just got loge seats this time.
Regarding the "facts" being brought to bear, it seems that if you're a woman and want your
15min of fame, all you have to do is describe your wildest sexual fantasy as long as you end
your statement with the seal of quality: "100% Kavanaugh."
And whether he lied about not being a lush and she about everything else the most pertinent
question is: where can you finally see more adults lying through their teeth than in the
US.gov? Indeed, the show must go on, and even Fred can't make this any funnier that it already
"... Plus according to Microsemi's own website, all military and aerospace qualified versions of their parts are still made in the USA. So this "researcher" used commercial parts, which depending on the price point can be made in the plant in Shanghai or in the USA at Microsemi's own will. ..."
"... The "researcher" and the person who wrote the article need to spend some time reading more before talking. ..."
"... You clearly have NOT used a FPGA or similar. First the ProASIC3 the article focuses on is the CHEAPEST product in the product line (some of that model line reach down to below a dollar each). But beyond that ... Devices are SECURED by processes, such as blowing the JTAG fuses in the device which makes them operation only, and unreadable. They are secureable, if you follow the proper processes and methods laid out by the manufacturer of the specific chip. ..."
"... Just because a "research paper" claims there is other then standard methods of JTAG built into the JTAG doesn't mean that the device doesn't secure as it should, nor does it mean this researcher who is trying to peddle his own product is anything but biased in this situation. ..."
"... You do know that the Mossad has been caught stealing and collecting American Top Secrets. ..."
"... The original article is here. [cam.ac.uk] It refers to an Actel ProAsic3 chip, which is an FPGA with internal EEPROM to store the configuration. ..."
"... With regard to reprogramming the chip remotely or by the FPGA itself via the JTAG port: A secure system is one that can't reprogram itself. ..."
"... When I was designing VMEbus computer boards for a military subcontractor many years ago, every board had a JTAG connector that required the use of another computer with a special cable plugged into the board to perform reprogramming of the FPGAs. None of this update-by-remote-control crap. ..."
"... It seems that People's Republic of China has been misidentified with Taiwan (Republic of China). ..."
"... Either the claims will be backed up by independently reproduced tests or they won't. But, given his apparent track record in this area and the obvious scrutiny this would bring, Skorobogatov must have been sure of his results before announcing this. ..."
"... Where was this undocumented feature/bug designed in? I see plenty of "I hate China" posts, it would be quite hilarious if the fedgov talked the US mfgr into adding this backdoor, then the Chinese built it as designed. Perhaps the plan all along was to blame the Chinese if they're caught. ..."
"... These are not military chips. They are FPGAs that happen to be used occasionally for military apps. Most of them are sold for other, more commercially exploitable purposes. ..."
"... The page with a link to the final paper actually does mention China. However, it's an American design from a US company. I suspect we will find the backdoor was in the original plans. It will be interesting to see however. ..."
"Today's big news is that researchers have found proof of Chinese manufacturers putting
backdoors in American chips that the military uses. This is false. While they did find a
backdoor in a popular FPGA chip, there is no evidence the Chinese put it there, or even
that it was intentionally malicious.
Furthermore, the Actel ProAsic3 FPGA chip isn't fabricated in China at all !!
1) Read the paper http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/Silicon_scan_draft.pdf
2) This is talking about FPGAs designed by Microsemi/Actel.
3) The article focuses on the ProAsic3 chips but says all the Microsemi/Actel chips tested
had the same backdoor including but not limited to Igloo, Fusion and Smartfusion.
4) FPGAs give JTAG access to their internals for programming and debugging but many of the
access methods are proprietary and undocumented. (security through obscurity)
5) Most FPGAs have features that attempt to prevent reverse engineering by disabling the
ability to read out critical stuff.
6) These chips have a secret passphrase (security through obscurity again) that allows you to
read out the stuff that was supposed to be protected.
7) These researchers came up with a new way of analyzing the chip (pipeline emission
analysis) to discover the secret passphrase. More conventional analysis (differential power
analysis) was not sensitive enough to reveal it.
This sounds a lot (speculation on my part) like a deliberate backdoor put in for debug
purposes, security through obscurity at it's best. It doesn't sound like something secret
added by the chip fab company, although time will tell. Just as embedded controller companies
have gotten into trouble putting hidden logins into their code thinking they're making the
right tradeoff between convenience and security, this hardware company seems to have done the
Someone forgot to tell the marketing droids though and they made up a bunch of stuff about
how the h/w was super secure.
I don't think anyone fully understands JTAG, there are a lot of different versions of it
mashed together on the typical hardware IC. Regardless if its a FPGA, microcontroller or
otherwise. The so called "back door" can only be accessed through the JTAG port as well, so
unless the military installed a JTAG bridge to communicate to the outside world and left it
there, well then the "backdoor" is rather useless.
Something that can also be completely disabled by setting the right fuse inside the chip
itself to disable all JTAG connections. Something that is considered standard practice on
IC's with a JTAG port available once assembled into their final product and programmed.
Plus according to Microsemi's own website, all military and aerospace qualified versions
of their parts are still made in the USA. So this "researcher" used commercial parts, which
depending on the price point can be made in the plant in Shanghai or in the USA at
Microsemi's own will.
The "researcher" and the person who wrote the article need to spend some time reading more
The so called "back door" can only be accessed through the JTAG port as well, so unless
the military installed a JTAG bridge to communicate to the outside world and left it there,
well then the "backdoor" is rather useless.
With pin access to the FPGA it's trivial to hook it up, no bridges or transceivers needed.
If it's a BGA then get a breakout/riser board that provides pin access. This is off-the-shelf
stuff. This means if the Chinese military gets their hands on the hardware they can reverse
engineer it. They won't have to lean very hard on the manufacturer for them to cough up every
last detail. In China you just don't say no to such requests if you know what's good for you
and your business.
Not being readable even when someone has the device in hand is exactly what these secure
FPGAs are meant to protect against!
It's not a non-issue. It's a complete failure of a product to provide any advantages
over non-secure equivalents.
You clearly have NOT used a FPGA or similar. First the ProASIC3 the article focuses on is
the CHEAPEST product in the product line (some of that model line reach down to below a
dollar each). But beyond that ... Devices are SECURED by processes, such as blowing the JTAG fuses in the device which makes
them operation only, and unreadable. They are secureable, if you follow the proper processes
and methods laid out by the manufacturer of the specific chip.
Just because a "research paper" claims there is other then standard methods of JTAG built
into the JTAG doesn't mean that the device doesn't secure as it should, nor does it mean this
researcher who is trying to peddle his own product is anything but biased in this
The US military should have a strict policy of only buying military parts from
sovereign, free, democratic countries with a long history of friendship, such as Israel,
Canada, Europe, Japan and South Korea.
Didn't the US and UK governments sell crypto equipment they knew they could break to their
'allies' during the Cold War?
Second problem.... 20 years ago the DOD had their own processor manufacturing facilities,
IC chips, etc. They were shut down in favor of commercial equipment because some idiot
decided it was better to have an easier time buying replacement parts at Radioshack than
buying quality military-grade components that could last in austere environments. (Yes,
speaking from experience). Servers and workstations used to be built from the ground up at
places like Tobyhanna Army Depot. Now, servers and workstations are bought from Dell.
Fabs are expensive. The latest generation nodes cost billions of dollars to set up and
billions more to run. If they aren't cranking chips out 24/7, they're literally costing
money. Yes, I know it's hte military, but I'm sure people have a hard time justifying $10B
every few years just to fab a few chips. One of the biggest developments in the 90s was the
development of foundries that let anyone with a few tens of millions get in the game of
producing chips rather than requiring billions in startup costs. Hence the startup of tons of
fabless companies selling chips.
OK, another option is to buy a cheap obsolete fab and make chips that way - much cheaper
to run, but we're also talking maybe 10+ year old technology, at which point the chips are
going to be slower and take more power.
Also, building your own computer from the ground up is expensive - either you buy the
designs of your servers from say, Intel, or design your own. If you buy it, it'll be
expensive and probably require your fab to be upgraded (or you get stuck with an old design -
e.g., Pentium (the original) - which Intel bought back from the DoD because the DoD had been
debugging it over the decade). If you went with the older cheaper fab, the design has to be
modified to support that technology (you cannot just take a design and run with it - you have
to adapt your chip to the foundry you use).
If you roll your own, that becomes a support nightmare because now no one knows the
And on the taxpayer side - I'm sure everyone will question why you're spending billions
running a fab that's only used at 10% capacity - unless you want the DoD getting into the
foundry business with its own issues.
Or, why is the military spending so much money designing and running its own computer
architecture and support services when they could buy much cheaper machines from Dell and run
Linux on them?
Hell, even if the DoD had budget for that, some bean counter will probably do the same so
they can save money from one side and use it to buy more fighter jets or something.
30+ years ago, defense spending on electronics formed a huge part of the overall
electronics spending. These days, defense spending is but a small fraction - it's far more
lucrative to go after the consumer market than the military - they just don't have the
economic clout they once had. End result is the military is forced to buy COTS ICs, or face
stuff like a $0.50 chip costing easily $50 or more for same just because the military is a
bit-player for semiconductors
You do know that the Mossad has been caught stealing and collecting American Top Secrets.
In fact most of the nations above save perhaps Canada have at one time or another been caught
either spying on us, or performing dirty deeds cheap against America's best interest. I'd say
for the really classified stuff, like the internal security devices that monitor everything
else... homegrown only thanks, and add that any enterprising person who's looking to get paid
twice by screwing with the hardware or selling secrets to certified unfriendlies get's to
cools their heels for VERY LONG TIME.
We investigated the PA3 backdoor problem through Internet searches, software and
hardware analysis and found that this particular backdoor is not a result of any mistake or
an innocent bug, but is instead a deliberately inserted and well thought-through backdoor
that is crafted into, and part of, the PA3 security system. We analysed other
Microsemi/Actel products and found they all have the same deliberate backdoor. Those
products include, but are not limited to: Igloo, Fusion and Smartfusion.
we have found that the PA3 is used in military products such as weapons, guidance,
flight control, networking and communications. In industry it is used in nuclear power
plants, power distribution, aerospace, aviation, public transport and automotive products.
This permits a new and disturbing possibility of a large scale Stuxnet-type attack via a
network or the Internet on the silicon itself. If the key is known, commands can be
embedded into a worm to scan for JTAG, then to attack and reprogram the firmware
emphasis mine. Key is retrieved using the backdoor. Frankly, if this is true, Microsemi/Actel should get complete ban from all government
contracts, including using their chips in any item build for use by the government.
I would not be surprised if it's a factory backdoor that's included in all their products,
but is not documented and is assumed to not be a problem because it's not documented.
With regard to reprogramming the chip remotely or by the FPGA itself via the JTAG port: A
secure system is one that can't reprogram itself.
When I was designing VMEbus computer boards
for a military subcontractor many years ago, every board had a JTAG connector that required
the use of another computer with a special cable plugged into the board to perform
reprogramming of the FPGAs. None of this update-by-remote-control crap.
source approved [dla.mil] for Microsemi (Actel) qualified chips in China. If you use
non-approved sources then, well, shit happens (although how this HW backdoor would be
exploited is kind of unclear).
It seems that People's Republic of China has been misidentified with Taiwan (Republic of
Either the claims will be backed up by independently reproduced tests or they won't. But,
given his apparent track record in this area and the obvious scrutiny this would bring,
Skorobogatov must have been sure of his results before announcing this.
Even though this story has been blowing-up on Twitter, there are a few caveats. The
backdoor doesn't seem to have been confirmed by anyone else, Skorobogatov is a little short
on details, and he is trying to sell the scanning technology used to uncover the
Hey hey HEY! You stop that right this INSTANT, samzenpus! This is Slashdot! We'll have
none of your "actual investigative research" nonsense around here! Fear mongering to sell ad
space, mister, and that's ALL! Now get back to work! We need more fluffy space-filling
articles like that one about the minor holiday labeling bug Microsoft had in the UK! That's
what we want to see more of!
The back-door described in the white paper requires access to the JTAG (1149.1) interface
to exploit. Most deployed systems do not provide an active external interface for JTAG. With
physical access to a "secure" system based upon these parts, the techniques described in the
white paper allow for a total compromise of all IP within. Without physical access, very
little can be done to compromise systems based upon these parts.
Where was this undocumented feature/bug designed in? I see plenty of "I hate China" posts,
it would be quite hilarious if the fedgov talked the US mfgr into adding this backdoor, then
the Chinese built it as designed. Perhaps the plan all along was to blame the Chinese if
These are not military chips. They are FPGAs that happen to be used occasionally for
military apps. Most of them are sold for other, more commercially exploitable purposes.
This is a physical-access backdoor. You have to have your hands on the hardware to be able
to use JTAG. It's not a "remote kill switch" driven by a magic data trigger, it's a mechanism
that requires use of a special connector on the circuit board to connect to a dedicated JTAG
port that is simply neither used nor accessible in anything resembling normal operation.
That said, it's still pretty bad, because hardware does occasionally end up in the hands
of unfriendlies (e.g., crashed drones). FPGAs like these are often used to run classified
software radio algorithms with anti-jam and anti-interception goals, or to run classified
cryptographic algorithms. If those algorithms can be extracted from otherwise-dead and
disassembled equipment, that would be bad--the manufacturer's claim that the FPGA bitstream
can't be extracted might be part of the system's security certification assumptions. If that
claim is false, and no other counter-measures are place, that could be pretty bad.
Surreptitiously modifying a system in place through the JTAG port is possible, but less of
a threat: the adversary would have to get access to the system and then return it without
anyone noticing. Also, a backdoor inserted that way would have to co-exist peacefully with
all the other functions of the FPGA, a significant challenge both from an intellectual
standpoint and from a size/timing standpoint--the FPGA may just not have enough spare
capacity or spare cycles. They tend to be packed pretty full, 'coz they're expensive and you
want to use all the capacity you have available to do clever stuff.
This is a physical-access backdoor. You have to have your hands on the hardware to be
able to use JTAG. It's not a "remote kill switch" driven by a magic data trigger, it's a
mechanism that requires use of a special connector on the circuit board to connect to a
dedicated JTAG port that is simply neither used nor accessible in anything resembling
Surreptitiously modifying a system in place through the JTAG port is possible, but
less of a threat: the adversary would have to get access to the system and then return it
without anyone noticing.
As someone else mentioned in another post, physical access can be a bit of a misnomer.
Technically all that is required is for a computer to be connected via the JTAG interface in
order to exploit this. This might be a diagnostic computer for example. If that diagnostic
computer were to be infected with a targeted payload, there is your physical access.
The page with a link to the final paper actually does mention China. However, it's an
American design from a US company. I suspect we will find the backdoor was in the original
plans. It will be interesting to see however.
Kind of Chinagate, but China means her Taivan and the design is US-based. Completely false
malicious rumors -- propaganda attack on China. The goal is clearly to discredit Chinese hardware
manufactures by spreading technical innuendo. In other words this is a kick below the belt.
Bloomberg jerks are just feeding hacker paranoia.
First of all this is not easy to do, secondly this is a useless exercise, as you need access
to TCP/IP stack of the computer to transmit information. Software Trojans is much more productive
area for such activities.
Today, Bloomberg BusinessWeek published a story claiming that AWS was aware of modified
hardware or malicious chips in SuperMicro motherboards in Elemental Media's hardware at the
time Amazon acquired Elemental in 2015, and that Amazon was aware of modified hardware or chips
in AWS's China Region.
As we shared with Bloomberg BusinessWeek multiple times over the last couple months, this is
untrue. At no time, past or present, have we ever found any issues relating to modified
hardware or malicious chips in SuperMicro motherboards in any Elemental or Amazon systems. Nor
have we engaged in an investigation with the government.
There are so many inaccuracies in this article as it relates to Amazon that they're
hard to count. We will name only a few of them here. First, when Amazon was considering
acquiring Elemental, we did a lot of due diligence with our own security team, and also
commissioned a single external security company to do a security assessment for us as well.
That report did not identify any issues with modified chips or hardware. As is typical with
most of these audits, it offered some recommended areas to remediate, and we fixed all critical
issues before the acquisition closed. This was the sole external security report commissioned.
Bloomberg has admittedly never seen our commissioned security report nor any other (and refused
to share any details of any purported other report with us).
The article also claims that after learning of hardware modifications and malicious chips in
Elemental servers, we conducted a network-wide audit of SuperMicro motherboards and discovered
the malicious chips in a Beijing data center. This claim is similarly untrue. The first and
most obvious reason is that we never found modified hardware or malicious chips in Elemental
servers. Aside from that, we never found modified hardware or malicious chips in servers in any
of our data centers. And, this notion that we sold off the hardware and datacenter in China to
our partner Sinnet because we wanted to rid ourselves of SuperMicro servers is absurd. Sinnet
had been running these data centers since we launched in China, they owned these data
centers from the start, and the hardware we "sold" to them was a transfer-of-assets agreement
mandated by new China regulations for non-Chinese cloud providers to continue to operate in
Amazon employs stringent security standards across our supply chain – investigating
all hardware and software prior to going into production and performing regular security audits
internally and with our supply chain partners. We further strengthen our security posture by
implementing our own hardware designs for critical components such as processors, servers,
storage systems, and networking equipment.
Security will always be our top priority. AWS is trusted by many of the world's most
risk-sensitive organizations precisely because we have demonstrated this unwavering commitment
to putting their security above all else. We are constantly vigilant about potential threats to
our customers, and we take swift and decisive action to address them whenever they are
– Steve Schmidt, Chief Information Security Officer
Trumptards are IDIOTs
CashMcCall , 5 hours ago
TRUMPTARDS have an enormous amount of surplus time on their hands to forward their Harry
Potter Styled Conspiracies.
APPLE AND AMAZON DENIED THE STORY. STORY OVER... GET IT CREEPY?
CashMcCall , 5 hours ago
While TRUMPTARDS were posting their Conspiracy Theories and the "TrumpEXPERTS" were
embellishing the ridiculous story with their lavish accounts of chip bug design, I was
enjoying a Bloomberg windfall.
Having confirmed early that the story was False since AMAZON and APPLE BOTH DENIED IT...
and their stock was not moving, I turned to Supermicro which was plunging and down over 50%.
I checked the options, and noted they were soft, so I put in bids for long shares and filled
blocks at 9 from two accounts.
The moronic TRUMPTARD Conspiracy posts continued, Supermicro is now up over 13.
That is the difference between having a brain in your head or having TRUMPTARD **** FOR
Urban Roman , 5 hours ago
On second thought, this story is just ********. Note that the BBG story never mentions the
backdoors that were talked about for over a decade, nor did they mention Mr. Snowden's
revelation that those backdoors do exist, and are being used, by the surveillance state.
Since the Chinese factories are manufacturing these things, they'd have all the specs and
the blobs and whatever else they need, and would never require a super-secret hardware chip
like this. Maybe this MITM chip exists, and maybe it doesn't. But there's nothing to keep
China from using the ME on any recent Intel chip, or the equivalent on any recent AMD chip,
The purpose of this article is to scare you away from using Huawei or ZTE for anything,
and my guess is that it is because those companies did not include these now-standard
backdoors in their equipment. Maybe they included Chinese backdoors instead, but again, they
wouldn't need a tiny piece of hardware for this MITM attack, since modern processors are all
defective by design.
Chairman , 5 hours ago
I think I will start implementing this as an interview question. If a job candidate is
stupid enough to believe this **** then they will not work for me.
DisorderlyConduct , 4 hours ago
Well, hmmm, could be. To update a PCB is actually really poor work. I would freak my
biscuits if I received one of my PCBs with strange pads, traces or parts.
To substitute a part is craftier. To change the content of a part is harder, and nigh
impossible to detect without xray.
Even craftier is to change VHDL code in an OTP chip or an ASIC. The package and internal
structure is the same but the fuses would be burned different. No one would likely detect
this unless they were specifically looking for it.
Kendle C , 5 hours ago
Well written propaganda fails to prove claims. Everybody in networking and IT knows that
switches and routers have access to root, built in, often required by government, backdoors.
Scripts are no big thing often used to speed up updates, backups, and troubleshooting. So
when western manufacturers began shoveling their work to Taiwan and China, with them they
sent millions of text files, including instructions for backdoor access, the means and
technology (to do what this **** article is claiming) to modify the design, even classes with
default password and bypass operations for future techs. We were shoveling hand over foot
designs as fast as we could...all for the almighty dollar while stiffing American workers. So
you might say greed trumped security and that fault lies with us. So stuff this cobbled
together propaganda piece, warmongering ****.
AllBentOutOfShape , 5 hours ago
ZH has definitely been co-oped. This is just the latest propaganda ******** article of the
week they've come out with. I'm seeing more and more articles sourced from well known
propaganda outlets in recent months.
skunzie , 6 hours ago
Reminds me of how the US pulled off covert espionage of the Russians in the 70's using
Xerox copiers. The CIA inserted trained Xerox copy repairmen to handle repairs on balky
copiers in Russian embassies, etc. When a machine was down the technician inserted altered
motherboards which would transmit future copies directly to the CIA. This is a cautionary
tale for companies to cover their achilles heel (weakest point) as that is generally the
easiest way to infiltrate the unsuspecting company.
PrivetHedge , 6 hours ago
What another huge load of bollocks from our pharisee master morons.
I guess they think we're as stupid as they are.
CashMcCall , 6 hours ago
But but but the story came from one of the chosen money changers Bloomberg... everyone
knows a *** would never lie or print a false story at the market open
smacker , 7 hours ago
With all the existing ***** chips and backdoors on our computers and smartphones planted
by the CIA, NSA, M$, Goolag & friends, and now this chip supposedly from China, it won't
be long before there's no space left in RAM and on mobos for the chips that actually make the
device do what we bought it to do.
Stinkbug 1 , 7 hours ago
this was going on 20 years ago when it was discovered that digital picture frames from
china were collecting passwords and sending them back. it was just a test, so didn't get much
now they have the kinks worked out, and are ready for the coup de grace.
This story seemed to die. Did anyone find anything indicating someone on our side has
actually got a look at the malicious chip, assuming it exists? Technical blogs have nothing,
only news rags like NewsMaxx. If 30 companies had these chips surely someone has one. This
might be one huge fake news story. Why Bloomberg would publish it is kind of odd.
FedPool , 7 hours ago
Probably a limited evaluation operation to gauge the population's appetite for war.
Pentagram market research. They're probably hitting all of the comment sections around the
web as we speak. Don't forget to wave 'hi'.
Heya warmongers. No, we don't want a war yet, k thanks.
underlying , 7 hours ago
Since were on the topic let's take a look at the scope hacking tools known to the general
public known prior to the Supermicro Server Motherboard Hardware Exploit; (P.S. What the ****
do you expect when you have Chinese state owned enterprises, at minimum quasi state owned
enterprises in special economic development zones controlled by the Chinese communist party,
Snowden NSA Leaks published in the gaurdian/intercept
Exactly. Why would they ever need a super-micro-man-in-the-middle-chip?
Maybe this 'chip' serves some niche in their spycraft, but the article in the keypost
ignores a herd of elephants swept under the carpet, and concentrates on a literal speck of
Moribundus , 8 hours ago
A US-funded biomedical laboratory in Georgia may have conducted bioweapons research under
the guise of a drug test, which claimed the lives of at least 73 subjects...new documents
"allow us to take a fresh look" at outbreaks of African swine fever in southern Russia in
2007-2018, which "spread from the territory of Georgia into the Russian Federation, European
nations and China. The infection strain in the samples collected from animals killed by the
disease in those nations was identical to the Georgia-2007 strain." https://www.rt.com/news/440309-us-georgia-toxic-bioweapon-test/
"... James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition. ..."
"... Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. ..."
"... According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." ..."
James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the
Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according
Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition.
"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.,
told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's
Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between
Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that
seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter
Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left
the bureau. -
Baker, who worked closely with former FBI Director James Comey, left the bureau earlier this
Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality
agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and
forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance
warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"During the time that the FBI was putting -- that DOJ and FBI were putting together the
FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election -- there was another source
giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive,"
said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether
the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the
FBI's Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators. -
According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his
deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
As the FBI's top lawyer, baker helped secure the FISA warrant on Page, along with three
subsequent renewals .
Rosenstein is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on October 11 for a closed-door interview,
according to Republican House sources, "not a briefing to leadership," and comes on the heels
of a New York Times report that said Rosenstein had discussed secretly recording President
Trump and removing him from office using the 25th Amendment.
Rosenstein and Trump pushed off a scheduled meeting into limbo amid speculation of his
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting remains in
But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations
against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth
Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like
broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.
As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual
misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters
in modern political history.
Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock,
Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public
as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court
Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or
used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly
drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house,
location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form
letter), Klobuchar (trying to exploit fraudulent Swetnick testimony for political purposes),
Kavanaugh (inability to take punches calmly, low quality of defence (this supposed to
be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible
aggressive behaviors when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high school and college,
possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left
her, not vise versa), using questionable methods to rent part of her house, and even more
questionable method to justify this, etc)
"... "Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims. ..."
"... We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault. ..."
"... But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans. ..."
"... I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. ..."
Why does the Times always have to spin news with a ludicrously liberal slant? Ford's
credibility was attacked by her ex boyfriend of 6 years, who lived with her, saw her prep her
friend for polygraph tests, flew with her on small propeller plans among the islands of Hawaii,
and had his credit card fraudulently charged by her.
The source is her ex-boyfriend. Yet the title implies it's Senate Republicans launching a
partisan attack. Give me a break.
Also, she's hurting her own credibility by claiming to remember having EXACTLY one beer 36
years ago. When she can't even remember where she was or how she got home after supposedly
being nearly raped and killed.
"Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend
who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims.
I am not sure how the Senate Republicans asking Ford's counsel for corroborating evidence,
that Ford herself brought up in the hearing, is equivalent to them attacking her credibility?
Maybe this article was actually meant to be in the opinion section written by the editorial
I am no expert, but isn't it the purpose of journalism to get down to the unbiased truth?
The Times should go pursue this ex-boyfriends story and try to find whether or not he is
credible rather than spewing out misleading headlines.
Its absurd that people are up in arms about this. It's a known fact that polygraphs are
unreliable, can be cheated and can create false positives. Even the person who invented the
test claimed they are faulty. Why she bothered to do one at all is a mystery, since she
probably knows they're unreliable. Did Kavenaugh do one?
How is investigating the allegations attacking her? She made statements in her testimony
that this letter form the ex-boyfriend has insight about. He shared what he knows. Should
this not be investigated? Does the NYT expect that only information about Kavanaugh should be
She has made allegations. Should not the credibility of those allegations be
looked into when there is evidence that perhaps she was not truthful? How is it right to only
investigate one side of the story, especially when there is no evidence and there are no
witnesses to the alleged event! To simply accept that she is telling the truth and say she is
being attacked when anyone questions her story is outrageous. But then this is a story in the
NYT, so of course the headlines are salacious and misleading to better advance your agenda. I
believe in free press and understand its place in a free society. But these kinds of stunts
are yellow journalism, and not healthy for our nation, or for the TImes in the long run. You
are destroying your reputation as honest journalism each and every time you do something like
Why shouldn't her credibility be established?
She is making damning accusations dating back 36 years.
Regardless of the genders of the parties involved and the nature of the incident, with no
corroborating witness, this still boils down to "she said , he said".
To be fair there is really not much else you can do but try to establish the relative
veracity of the two people involved.
It seems that "fairness" is not the goal of extremists on either side.
It's strictly about the outcome going their way.
@Psst Ms. Mitchell was right to ask about the test, based on Dr. Ford's expertise as a
psychologist. When I hearing that she took and passed a polygraph, I thought, "She's a
psychologist, doesn't she know how those work?"
I'm sorry, but those who "believe" Ford need to understand that polygraphs are not valid
and they are not reliable. The psych literature is full of research papers on this. Here is a
quick summary from the American Psych Association.
Polygraph tests are widely used in psych classes as examples of modern day pseudoscience,
akin to phrenology.
People who believe their story, who have been trained, who don't care or who are
psychopaths can easily pass a polygraph even when lying.
Dr. Ford, as a psychologist knows this. So her story about taking the polygraph and
finding it distressing are ridiculous. She took it as a stunt knowing she could easily pass
because polygraph's don't detect lies. The whole charade further undermines her story, as
much her professed fear of flying or her statement that she didn't tell anyone about this
except husband and therapist until she came forward -- which later morphed to, she discussed
it with her beach friends.
I don't know what Ford's game is, she may believe her tale, or she may have deliberately
come forward with a false accusation to stop a conservative from ascending to the highest
court in the land. She is a committed dem activist.
Polygraphs are bogus -- they only work through intimidating naive individuals.
I never told boys or men I was dating about my experiences with sexual abuse. Why would I?
Dating someone does not require you to open your soul. I never told my parents about two of
the three episodes I was victim to. I was too stunned, shocked and ashamed. I'm a woman.
That's what I was taught to be. I was taught it was my fault if I was abused. I was taught
that by the whole society we live in. Why in heaven's name would I ever mention my history to
someone I was simply dating?
"Still, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Blasey at
last week's hearing, seemed to know to ask her about whether she had ever advised anyone
about taking a polygraph test."
So it's very likely the Republicans knew in advance of Mr Merrick's statement but chose to
withhold it. Given their criticism of Democrats' conduct about Dr Ford's statement they seem
a little hypocritical. Sen. Grassley's charging a "lack of candor" is risible.
Even if Dr Ford had 20 years ago coached someone in techniques to pass a polygraph test
and exaggerated her claustrophobia - both of which I doubt - big deal. "Central to the
credibility of her testimony " pace Sen Grassley, it is not. It is on the periphery.
One can only surmise what Mr Merrick's motivation is but it seems overwhelmingly likely
he's providing this to support the Republican cause or for money or (contrary to what he
says) because he's ill disposed to Dr Ford (or a mixture of the three).
Why else would he interfere? She's not the one applying for the job (if she had been, any
intelligent committee would have seen she's far better qualified, temperamentally and
I did not vote for Trump but it is obvious that the New York Times is out to destroy him
and his programs.
Remember Clinton's statements about the economy, " It is the economy, stupid. " You have to
give Trump credit for a very strong economy, low unemployment, and a vibrant stock market.
Voters will get it, the New York Times may not.
P.S. I believe that the media is responsible for the anger in our country. Would be much
better if the media sought to build a consensus, trust, achievement, not division.
This is an obscenity. That the nomination of a marginally qualified apparatchik to the
Supreme Court would result in the corruption of the institution and the rule of law as the
foundation of the United States is obscene. Any further move other than the nomination's
withdrawal will be catastrophic. Any further political involvement in this nomination will be
So it's okay to "smear" Judge Kavanaugh by publicizing allegations from former college
"friends" etc, but it is deeply unfair to even mention that Dr Ford might just not be Joan of
Arc. I seem to see a bit of a double standard here.
Every psychologist knows that polygraphs are unreliable and can be faked. It is even an
official position of the American Psychological Association. Why would any psychologist have
a polygraph test other than to scam someone? If any of this is true, a lot of people have
just been duped by a great actress, which the best deceivers always are. But like cultists,
having emotionally committed themselves few will have the courage to admit it.
Fear of flying and claustrophobia start in adulthood. Ford and this man started dating
when she was just out of college, whereas fear of flying's average age of onset, according to
online sources is 27 and it worsens with age -- especially after marriage and kids as people
emotionally have more to lose.
I had an employee years ago who was fine flying for work in his mid-20s, but as he
approached 30 he started to experience terrible anxiety about flying. He also became quite
claustrophobic and couldn't get in the elevator if it was crowded. We had to adjust his job
Ford also stated under oath that the attack she alleges was not the only cause of her
anxiety/claustrophobia. She alluded to other predispositions. Go back and listen to the
From this article "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr.
Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her
testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her
married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to
somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
Oh, I was under the impression that only The Media could attack (Kavanaugh, that is.)
Almost everything I have read in the news (other than the Wall Street Journal) is based on
speculation, written by Left Wing Activists (see article from yesterday's NY Times).
Dr. Ford (or probably her attorneys) have mislead and lied directly to the american people
about Dr. Ford's "Fear of Flying" when she flies all over the place. When the Senate
Committee offered to interview her privately in her California home or anywhere private she
wanted she knew nothing about it.
Either she is lying or her attorneys are lying to her or keeping information that doesn't
advance their narrative. Either way this whole thing stinks!
You accept flat-out what this ex-boyfriend says without question, and thus paint Dr.
Blasey Ford as a "liar"? What about Kavanaugh's "selective honesty"? And how you get to being
a pawn and loving attention from her extreme reticence is a total mystery. It appears you
accept whatever the Senate Committee majority puts out without critical examination or
waiting to see if there is any rebuttal.
Read: women should not be challenged when they lob career-ending accusations at men. They
should be taken at their word and not subjected to any type of opposition. Because, heck,
doing so would re-victimize the victim (even though her status as victim is very far from
We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal
Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When
they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and
frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual
What women propose is an end run around fundamental principles of fairness, to say nothing
of the judicial principles that have governed us for centuries. And to say nothing of the
proposition that they are adults themselves, have willingly entered the big bad government
and financial worlds and proclaimed that they can handle themselves ferociously, just like
men, thank you very much.
The evidence clearly corroborates that Kavanagh was a drunken abusive lout in high school
and college. His testimony in Congress proves he still is. At this point it really doesn't
matter what Miss Ford said or did not say; what matters is what Cavanaugh has said and
I've seen and heard so many of my friends on the left say with great conviction: "I
believe her!" But if you're willing to analyze with a fair mind all the accusations flying
around, you'll agree there isn't a shred of corroboration.
This credulous yet firmly-held faith in Dr. Ford is just that "Faith" - belief without
In fact, there's more reason to believe in Santa Claus than in Dr. Ford. At least with
Santa, the cookies and milk we left for him before bed were gone in the morning and were
replaced by presents. Now that's real corroboration - at least in the mind of a credulous
"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to
relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve
political interests. It does not serve interest in truth.
Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party
wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.
But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford
indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she
knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident
desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience,
evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.
That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.
So there you have it. She lied under oath at least twice. And now we know that her "second
door" was added in 2009, not 2012 as she claimed, based on oermitnhistory and used as an
entrance to a rental unit they built. She also lied about credit card fraud until her ex
threatened to prosecute her. Add that to the multiple memory lapses" and no evidence to back
up her story this woman is simply not credible. I was also bothered that she stated her
friend Leland didn't remember the party because she currently had health issues. Why would
that make any difference?
The ex-boyfriend dated Dr. Ford from 1992-1998 and that corresponds to when McClean was
hired by the FBI. Conversely what does the ex-boyfriend get out of this -- grief from the
press for daring to question Dr. Ford? Dr. Ford's claims are so full of inconsistencies it is
absurd. The polygraph issue is just one aspect of the ex-boyfriend's letter -- there are
other deliberate lies that Dr. Ford is being accused of presenting in her testimony. Time for
the press to examine where Dr. Ford lived when the ex-boyfriend asserts she was living in a
500 square foot apartment with ONE door.
@Ora Pro Nobis I disagree that it was unfair. Rather, in the testimony, Kavanaugh revealed
his extreme partisanship, lack of respect, lack of decorum, lack of honesty, lack of ability
to handle pressure, unwillingness to answer questions and his immaturity -- all of these
extremely important to consider in weighing his fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court. Dr.
Ford did the nation a tremendous service in presenting an opportunity for Kavanaugh to let us
know what he's made of.
I guess I need to revise a comment I made earlier. I called Dr. Ford's allegations
baseless. That was incorrect. They were worse and weaker than baseless. Her allegations were
refuted under oath by numerous people and now further undermined by the latter released by
her ex-boyfriend. This is what you get when you allow hearsay and uncorroborated allegations
into the process.
A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's
testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for
sure, barring further investigation.
The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that
this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted
undisciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in
money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.
Don't participate in victim-shaming, New York Times, by publishing victim-shaming letters.
"In efforts to discredit alleged sexual assault victims in court, a defense attorney may
delve into an accuser's personal history, a common practice that also has the purposeful
effect of making the victim so uncomfortable they choose not to proceed." Of note, past
sexual history, such as cheating, is often raised to discredit the victim. Sound
I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's
allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any
support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by
everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly
told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count.
I thought Ford's description of the
assault was quite plausible. However, it's implausible that she didn't know Grassley had
offered to interview her at home, that fear of flying was the cause of her delays, that she
doesn't know who drove her home-but is sure she drank exactly one beer, and that she needed
to study her invoices to figure out that her legal services and polygraph are
I no longer care about whether Kavanaugh or Ford are telling the truth. What I do care
about is the blatant partisanship, half truths and revenge evidenced in Kavanaugh's
testifimony. 'WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND". If America thinks this behavior and thinly
veiled threat is an acceptable mindset for a supreme court justice, I need to start investing
in real estate in Canada.
Kavanaugh's quote is "We're loud obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us." You
know, that sensitive stomach that reacts to spicy foods, that he swore under oath was the
reason for his well-documented vomiting.
Also, "[A]ny girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open..." What exactly is it
you mean here, church-going, studious St Brett?
My predictions were that Ford would not deliver the therapist's notes. She claimed, as did
many here, that hey were the evidence that proved the story. Then she insisted that they were
'private' after the discrepancies were noted in her stories from the letter to Feinstein to
the WaPo story.
Now we've learned that the second door was actually for the addition to the house, along with
a bathroom and kitchenette. A room that was rented out. Not another WAY out.
In the notes, I'm sure that there is no mention of the need for another door due to the
'fear' Ford claimed. Especially since the permit for that addition with a door was pulled in
2008. Not in 2012. The therapist notes also are almost certainly from the 'counselor' who
rented the apartment/office initially, who they also bought the house from and is now
refusing to discuss it further.
Of course the person she helped is going to deny it. First, she would be in trouble with the
FBI (she can count on an inquiry) and second, to admit it would prove that her friend whom
she supported is a liar and perjurer.
When Mitchell asked Ford whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph, my
first thought was, they have something. Then it took them a week to use it. I wonder when he
contacted them, or how many of her ex boyfriends they called.
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We
now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants
installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed
no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement
about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts
corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been
identified uttering. She is not credible.
It's strange that "Bart" Kavanaugh was shown to lie, be confrontational, bullying and
evasive, yet the Senate Republican's do not seem to have a problem with it.
When you have the FBI being restrained from talking to witnesses and following leads is
outrageous, not interviewing Dr. Ford and "Bart" Kavanaugh makes this a joke investigation
and will taint this Supreme Court pick forever.
This Merrick goes on to say "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything
regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote.
"Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
My ex wife had been the victim of an attempted rape in her teens yet in ten years of
knowing her she never mentioned it once. My Grandfather fought in WWII and witnessed horrific
stressful things yet never spoke about them either. So we can discount the assertion in
Polygraph tests are inaccurate - statistically, they're slightly better than just
guessing. They're not lie detectors; we'd be better off calling them anxiety detectors. If
you're evaluating Ford's testimony, feel free to just throw the whole polygraph out, if that
makes you more confident about your opinion.
If you believe what Mr. Merrick says is true, understand that an M.A. in psychology is
going to tell you what any good friend would tell you before taking a polygraph test: Relax,
be calm, tell the truth. You're a good person, you have no reason to be worried.
If you asked me if I *ever* gave advice on a polygraph test, and it turns out me and my
roommate talked about it once twenty-five years ago, please don't hold it against me that I
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning
algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial
manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is
nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.
@Jay Lincoln You say the Times had a slant? What would the story sound like standing
straight up? Different? Her ex-boyfriend may not be a reliable source - he saw her tell
someone what a polygraph test was like - not how to beat one. PS - if you only drink one beer
when you drink, remembering that would not be hard to accept. (Did she have many beers at
other times? You know anything about it?) Please - take the break you say you need.
I'm so glad I'm a centrist because this bickering has become foolish. Yes the country
deserves honorable justices on our courts, there's so much dishonesty coming from both sides
that it seems everyone should be cut off in exchange for another nominee. The country's
divisions are getting careless and childish that anyone will say anything to get their way.
Put someone else on the table already folks.
As many observers have noted, the WH has perhaps dozens of qualified candidates to replace
Kavanaugh without a stigma of sexual assault hovering over them and who reflect views
consistent with those of the Republicans.
Why then continue with a nomination that has ripped the country apart?
The answer is Mr. Trump's inability to acknowledge a mistake and to adopt the posture of Roy
Cohen: never backdown; always punish your enemy more painfully than he/she punished you;
never show weakness.
So it's another incident in which we have to suffer, often needlessly,
to satisfy Mr. Trump's narcissistic, egomaniacal needs.
Polygraph is junk science anyway. At best, it can determine whether the person believes
she is telling the truth, not what the truth is. I think Dr. Ford believes her own words. But
the more I learn about the circumstances of her testimony, the less inclined I am to believe
that the alleged assault happened the way she described it. I suspect it is a classic case of
false memory or confabulation. The FBI should interrogate her therapist with regard to the
kind of therapy Dr. Ford received. And what about Dr. Ford's husband? Can't he tell us when,
exactly, his wife remembered the name of her attacker? And how is the ex-boyfriend who
apparently was with Dr. Ford for six years (in another country he would be called a
common-law husband) did inot know about the assault that had supposedly blighted Dr. Ford's
life? These questions need to be answered. Otherwise the entire thing is just a charade. And
for the record, I was bitterly opposed to Kavanuagh nomination because of his position on
Roe. Now I wish him confirmed just to end this circus. Trump's other nominee won't be any
better on abortion anyway.
The ex boyfriend commentary brings new meaning to the saying "hell has no fury like a man
scorned" (I substituted man for woman). This is what appears to have happen. Never in my
lifetime would I have thought that I would witness such division and the airing out of our
dirty laundry for the world to see. This makes the famous novel entitled The Beans of Egypt,
Maine, by Carolyn Chute, look like a Disney story.
Seems to me that it's all a bunch of hearsay. At this point I think Kavanaugh is too
divisive and shouldn't be confirmed because this process has horribly divided us along
partisan lines, however, there can really be no truth known.
It's just all a bunch of hearsay. She said, he said, with no evidence. I dont believe
either of them quite frankly. There are always three sides to the story. One sides story, the
other sides story, and the actual truth. The actual truth is known through empirical
evidence, and I dont think there is anything real. Sworn statements and polygraph tests are
not evidence. DNA or a video are evidence, and there is none of that. As such, the FBI cannot
get to the truth and never will.
I disagree with this political hit job. The Democrafs are the ones stoking the fires of
division in this battle. However, they have succeeded and at this point Kavanaugh is so
divisive that I believe it would hurt American institutions if he was nominated.
@CPR Ford's claims are uncorroborated, even refuted by her own best friend. Where was the
defense for Kavanaugh then? Not so much male privilege or power when he is not even given the
basic courtesy of being held innocent until proven guilty.
"He also wrote that they broke up "once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful" and
that she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year before he took her off the
account. "When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the
use after I threatened to involve fraud protection," he said."
Small points, but:
They weren't married or engaged and perhaps the relationship had played itself out. I'd
venture to say the majority of failing relationships end with the involvement of a third
person. If he's trying to assassinate her character, this is a weak attempt. Heck, look at
the guy who's in the WH.
They shared a credit card that she "continued to use a year before he took her off the
account". This doesn't constitute fraud, her name was on the account at the time she used it.
He had no basis for a fraud case.
He claimed she lived a 500sf place with only one door- ok, but it was in California, where
space is at a premium. She was obviously on a budget, which dictates what one can afford.
@Rickske "Klobuchar apologize to Kavanaugh?! Like telling a black person to apologize for
taking a bus seat before a white person."
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. Klobuchar went after Kavanaugh over the Avenatti
rape gangs claims which are now laughing stock of the whole nation. That's why she must
apologize. Especially to his family and daughters.
@Phyliss Dalmatian Too many holes in the story.
Have you read about the supposed "2nd door" Ford claims to have installed for protection?
Well, seems it was really to "host" i.e., rent out the area of her master bedroom to Google
interns (prior to that, it was used as a business). Ford also owns a 2nd home. She does not
have two doors on that home. She lied about her fear of flying, about never having
discussions about polygraphs in the past and she doesn't remember if she took the polygraph
the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day after. Seriously? Those are just the lies that
stick out to me. The omissions are too many to recall here. Try, please try, to take your
loathing of Trump from the equation and realize that this woman lied! I believe her too. But
I do not anymore. She's lying. It's frightening. What's more frightening is that the media
isn't being honest about their reporting. This is ruining a man's life and that of his
family. This isn't fair.
feinstein was holding onto dr. ford as her "ace in the hole". she wasn't going to use it
if she didn't have to and she was holding out until the last minute. which also gives rise to
the longest delay possible for the confirmation vote. simple dirty politics.
There is a simple, effective way to handle all allegations, now or future ones.
First, the timetable is arbitrary.
That gives FBI full authority to impartially investigate all allegations.
To prevent adding allegations, give a time limit to all allegations.
Then conduct the investigation for a reasonable amount of time. No constraints, no limits if
material to the accusations that is up to the FBI to decide.
You can still complete this investigation before elections if that is a priority.
Finally if investigations reveal anything against him that would have impacted his support
for the court, impeach him if he is on it.
Just by what has transpired, his sneaky lies, partisan attack and blatant threat he is
unfit for any court. If he values his family, he would spare them the worst by withdrawing
Elections have consequences. In a zero sum game your vote determines the outcome. As a
matter of principle Election commission's goal ought to be 100% participation with a
mandatory improvement in every election, period.
@4merNYer What about the senate's conduct? Why was the allegations hidden until after the
hearing until the last moment? Instead of a confidential investigation as is due process, and
if confirmed charges then disqualification of the man's nomination, again as is due process,
he and his family dragged into a media circus. Its only fair he got a little upset at the way
it was handled.
His answers were concrete, he categorically and emphatically denied all allegations. There
was nothing more to be said.
1. You accuse a man of impeccable record and public service to America for 23 years - of
running rape gangs. Crucify him in public, drag his family and daughters into this chaos -
and then expect him to be unemotional? How's that fair?
2. He's clearly demonstrated what now? where? You're reaching too much.
how is this a desperate smear? and what went on against Kavanaugh was not? who cares if he
drank during hs and college. back then most kids did. and he couldn't have been drunk all the
time and be as successful in his grades as he was. so focused on all the wrong things.
I remember a poly I took 40 years ago to work at a convenience store. The tight cuff
immediately said "heart rate". So I intermittently calmed down and sped my heart to play a
game with the examiner. I passed and remain convinced it's all voodoo.
So it is one thing to tell someone that during a lie detector test your vital signs will
be monitored as you are asked questions, starting with control questions that have
established true or false answers. My Mother told me so at least, and I would not say that
she advised me how to take a polygraph examination. There is on the other hand a technique in
which people who are to submit to a polygraph examination learn how to raise their blood
pressure or breathing rate while being asked control questions that they answer to
truthfully. This adjusts your baseline vital signs to a level that would be too close to your
vital signs while lying such that the changes in vital signs from truth to lie state are not
statistically significant. I would say that training someone to do that is teaching someone
how to take (and pass) a polygraph examination. Her boyfriend did not describe this being the
case, so I think he and the Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Also, I was molested as a child in a movie theater. I did not talk about it until forty years
later, not to my serious boyfriends along the way, nor to my first husband. I only spoke
about it to my second husband when we began taking our own little girls to the movies and I
realized how terrified I was that they would be molested. I could hardly watch the movie, and
wanted my husband to bracket them with me. He never understood that, but then he supports
Trump (and we are divorced).