Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak
Who are those "experts" who tell us those were Russians? Are those the same "experts" who
found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or claim that Hillary bathroom email server was not breached?
The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private
email serverwhich operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to
China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security datawas not hacked by the Russians
now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians
Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.
Only Jedi Knights can stop him.
Russia, if youre listening, I hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that
Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal by Hillary Clinton
and deleted from her private email server.
Clinton campaign is trying to hide their very serious domestic allegation tried to play "Russians
are coming" trick... In reality the real issue with DNS leaks in the fact that Sanders campaign was sabotaged by crooks in DNC.
All those presstitutes who wipe up anti-Russian hysteria should ask themselves a simple question.
Do they have any moral right to ask question about the legitimacy of foreign interference if
this interference is the cornerstone of the US foreign policy. As in "color revolutions" and similar
subversive actions against "not neoliberal enough" government of countries with natural resources or
of some geopolitical value. Also it is not clear why Russia would prefer Trump to Hillary.
Here is one post that addresses this issues (Economist's
View Whats Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism Maybe the Economy, Oct 14, 2016):
Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into
the US political system and for this reason was widely read
by specialists. Especially materials published by the
Institute of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think
tank somewhat similar to the Council on Foreign Relations.
As for your remark I think for many people in the USA
Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not
"misunderestimate" the level of understanding of the US
political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about
machinations of the neoliberal foreign policy, especially
about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a
bloody nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in
2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution). A typical
US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about
"Pussy riot", Navalny and couple of other minor figures. At
the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was
expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR
power-wise, so Obama later put her on sanctions using MH17
incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They
also successfully implemented regime change in Ukraine --
blooding Putin nose in return.
But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin
does not need to interfere in a way like the USA did in
It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are
probably equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state"
which actually dictate the US foreign policy, not POTUS.)
The US political system is already the can of worms and
the deterioration of neoliberal society this time created
almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug
elite was not able to control the nomination. Democratic
establishment still did OK and managed to squash the
rebellion, but here the level of degeneration demonstrated
itself in the selection of the candidate.
Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US
political system, I am not so sure the Trump is preferable to
Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable
and more dangerous. The main danger of Hillary is Syria war
escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn into
the second John McCain on a dime.
Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated.
Both are puppets of the forces the brought them to the
current level and in their POTUS role will need to be
subservient to the "deep state". Or at least to take into
account its existence and power. And that makes them more of
prisoners of the position they want so much.
Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also
can't ignore the deep state. Both require the support of
Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it
will very hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for
Russians, as this excludes the possibility of some very
Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US
foreign policy. In this area the deep state is in charge
since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much
might end as badly as JFK. I think Obama understood this very
well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are people
who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he
In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on
their power that "deep state" enforces. And that virtually
guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just
slight tactical variations.
So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can
elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign policy of the USA will
be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.
In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more
willing to experiment, while Hillary is definitely a "status
quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock
market crush. So from the point of internal economic policy
Hillary is also preferable.
A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and
that might be true as women in high political position try to
outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably
will be tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary
definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the Pope" in this
area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end
well for her and she might learn the lesson.
But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian
term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that Russians may well already
collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart for Russians. As in "devil that we
know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned
by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary
displayed during her career, I would be worried what Russians
have on her , as well as on Bill "transgressions" and
RICO-style actions of Clinton Foundation.
And taking into account the level of disgust amount the
government officials with Hillary (and this is not limited to
Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might
further complicate her position as POTUS.
In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue.
Especially if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some
disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and not of
some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as
such a constant distraction might limit her possibility to
make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.
As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail
providers are just one click away for NSA analysts. So
"Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.
Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for
Hillary will start soon after her election. In the House
Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a
plus for s for both Russia and China. Trump is extremely
jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were
Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.
Also do not discount her health problems. She does have
some serious neurological disease, which eventually might
kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a
year or two the current symptoms might become more
pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like a
person with HIV;
further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but
he really looks bad).
I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even
preferable candidate for such states as Russia and China.
This is the situation of "king is naked" -- the state that teaches other countries about
democracy has completely corrupted election process, like a typical banana republic. That what
Wikileak revelations proved.
In his post
our enemy? Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence
and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets) aptly stated:
The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy
of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten
the United States?
Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia
to Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia
never accepted the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th
Century. How does this annexation threaten the United States?
Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does
that threaten the United States?
Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that.
Is it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have
the Russians made threatening statements about the NATO states?
Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When
and where was that?
Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United
States is on shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked)
as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the
capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.
The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world
class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.
We should all sober up.
The Russian theme has become one of the most important in Hillary presidential campaign and
she unsurprisingly is engaged in full-scale anti-Russian hysteria.
Hillary joined ranks with neocons, military-industrial complex and plain-vanilla Russophobes (katehon.com,
Jul 28. 2016):
Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails
"missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton
destroyed evidence proving that she used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information.
Democrats immediately accused Trump of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire
rhetorically hinted that the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands
of foreign intelligence services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.
Trump's statement that he is ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian
sanctions caused even more noise. This view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican
mainstream. Trump also said that Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself
hopes to find a common language with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that
the US must work together with Russia to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.
Hide The establishment's tantrum
Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence,
made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat
hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."
It is Putin personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences
of top employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united
part of the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves.
Trump supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these
letters. And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.
Hide The pro-American candidate
The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations
with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald
Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this
election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American
politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the
US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage.
Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he
would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.
Another thing is that his understanding of US national interests is fundamentally different from
the dominant American globalist elite consensus. For Trump, the US should not be the source of a
global liberal remaking of the world, but a national power, which optimizes its position just as
efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of optimizing the position of the United States,
he says there should be a normal American interaction with Putin and Russia in the field of combating
terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries into a global war. He claims this is to
be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion of democracy and the so-called fight
against "authoritarian regimes".
Bullsh**t that the US MSM are now propagating is essentially a variation of the old theme "The
Russians are Coming". Here is nice satire on the topic (washingtonsblog.com):
MC: President Putin, did the Russian government hack the DNC email server and then publically
release those emails through Wikileaks the day before the Democratic convention?
MC: Yes! Are you serious?
Putin: Im quite serious.
MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?
MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?
Putin: Your question should be what took Russia so long. The US oligarchs and their minions
surround us with military bases and nuclear missiles, damage our trade to Europe, and seek to destabilize
our domestic politics. These emails are nothing in the big picture. But theyre sort of funny,
dont you agree?
MC: Im not sure that funny is the right word. What do you mean by that?
Putin: Youve got Hillary Clinton running as a strong and independent woman.
Of course, nobody would know who she is had she not married Bill Clinton. Shes not independent.
Quite the contrary. She had to marry a philandering redneck to get to where she is. When it comes
to strength, I can say only this. How strong can you be if you have to cheat and create a rigged
game to win the nomination?
MC: Anything else about your leak to cheer us up?
Putin: This situation is the epitome of ironic humor. After the emails were released, the
focus was all on DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Thats fine for now but what
happens when people start asking why Wasserman-Schultz had the DNC screw Sanders and boost Hillary?
Did she just wake up one day and decide this on her own?. Not likely. She was and remains Hillarys
agent. It will take people a while to arrive that answer. When enough people hear about
Wasserman-Schultzs key role in the Clinton campaign, everything will be clear. Its
adios Hillary. That inevitable conclusion, by the way, is the reason the DNC made such a big deal
about Russia hacking the DNC. That was diversion one right out of the gate.
DNC and Clinton are going to push the Russian card very hard in anticipation of further stories and
revelations of corruption, money laundering, etc. Technical analysis provided is some idiotic,
entry level nonsense. And it should ne complete dulsh*t as those cases are very complex and can used
smokescreen -- deflecting attention from a read source (for example Israel) to Russians (Israel has
large Russian speaking population, that is well represented in security services of the country).
When the USA opened this can of worm with Stixnet (discovered around mid 2010) and Flame (discovered
around 2012), they did not expect a blowback. Now it start coming: it is simply impossible to secure
"normal" Microsoft-based IT system against any sophisticated adversary. Remember that we live in the
period when developed by NSA and "friends" Flame and Stixnet worm are part of the recorded history.
And technologies used in them are well studied by all major world three letter agencies. They
became a part of their workbook. And the response to their devilishness they generated even more
devilish methods of attack of any IT infrastructure based on Microsoft technologies, to say nothing
about such low hanging fruit as completely corrupt DNC with semi-competent IT staff using
pathetic Microsoft Exchange based email system: (naked
Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular
until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal
log files gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then
once the request hops out of your org requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over
*those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat
For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open
wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to
another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another
anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking)
then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them,
FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail
account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later
from a completely different set of servers.
In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end:
some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log
files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis
to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal
PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.
If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get
lucky but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs i.e.,
rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered
things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was
more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself
an attempt at obfuscation.
Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any
log files at any public or private network at its own whim its completely silly to attribute
a hack to anyone at this point.
So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!
Just to clarify on the " If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence "
this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard
signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known
Russian hacking groups'.
That's great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten
me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools
get you closer to possible suspects but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the
community worldwide as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent
hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things
into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)
I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck
from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind
'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I
guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE
RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.
The whole episode reminds me of
the Sony hack , for which Obama
also blamed a demonized foreign power. Interestingly - to beg the question here - the blaming
was also based on a foreign character set in the data (though Hangul, not Korean). Look! A clue!
JacobiteInTraining's methodology also reminds me of NC's coverage of Grexit. Symbol manipulators
- like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are
as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are. In Greece, for example, it really was a difficult technical
challenge for Greece to reintroduce the drachma, especially given the time-frame, as contributor
Clive remorselessly showed. Similarly, it's really not credible to hire a consultant and get a hacking
report with a turnaround time of less than a week, even leaving aside the idea that the DNC just
might have hired a consultant that would give them the result they wanted (because who among
us, etc.) What JacobiteInTraining shows us is that computer forensics is laborious, takes time, and
is very unlikely to yield results suitable for framing in the narratives proffered by the political
class. Of course, that does confirm all my priors!
There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers
and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that,
among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some
of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack
analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.
Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by
those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are
blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address - 176.31.112[.]10 - that
was hard coded
in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC's servers.
Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as
the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department
domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a little
time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls apart.
Problem #1: The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and
Control server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact,
Claudio Guarnieri , a highly regarded security researcher,
whose technical analysis was
Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Mind you, he has two additional problems with that claim alone.
This piece is a must read if you want to dig further into this topic.
 More than a talking point but, really, less than a narrative. It's like we need a new word
for these bite-sized, meme-ready, disposable, "throw 'em against the wall and see if they stick"
stories; mini-narrative, or narrativelette, perhaps. "All the crunch of a real narrative, but none
of the nutrition!"
 This post is not about today's Trump moral panic, where the political class is frothing
and stamping about The Donald's humorous (or ballbusting, take your pick) statement that he
"hoped" the Russians had hacked the 30,000 emails that Clinton supposedly deleted from the email
server she privatized in her public capacity as Secretary of State before handing the whole flaming
and steaming mess over to investigators. First, who cares? Those emails are all about yoga lessons
and Chelsea's wedding. Right? Second, Clinton didn't secure the server for three months. What did
she expect? Third, Trump's suggestion is just dumb; the NSA has to have that data, so just ask them?
Finally, to be fair, Trump shouldn't have uttered the word "Russia." He should have said "Liechtenstein,"
or "Tonga," because it's hard to believe that there's a country too small to hack as fat a target
as Clinton presented; Trump was being inflammatory. Points off. Bad show.
For those interested, the excellent interviewer Scott Horton just spoke with Jeffrey Carr,
an IT security expert about all this. It's about 30 mins:
Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and CEO of Taia Global, Inc., discusses his fact-checking
of Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo article that claims a close alliance between Trump and
Putin; and why the individuals blaming Russia for the DNC email hack are more motivated by
politics than solid evidence.
Carr makes the point that even supposed clues about Russian involvement ("the default language
is Cyrillic!") are meaningless as all these could be spoofed by another party.
Separately it just shows again Team Clinton's (and DNC's) political deviousness and expertise
how they with the full support of the MSM of course have managed to deflect the discussion to
Trump and Russia from how the DNC subverted US democracy.
and again, we see the cavalier attitude about national security from the clinton camp, aggravating
the already tense relationship with russia over this bullshit, all to avoid some political disadvantage.
clinton doesn't care if russia gets the nuclear launch codes seemingly, but impact her chances
to win the race and it's all guns firing.
Well yeah, and I could be a bot, how do you know I'm not?
Absent any other evidence to work with, I can accept it as credible that a clumsy Russian
or Baltic user posted viewed and saved docs instead of the originals; par for the course in public
and private bureaucracies the world over. It would have been useful to see the original Properties
metadata; instead we get crapped up copies. That only tells me the poster is something of a lightweight,
and it at least somewhat suggests that these docs passed through multiple hands.
But that doesn't mean A) the original penetration occurred under state control (or even in
Russia proper), much less B) that Putin Himself ordered the hack attempts, which is the searing
retinal afterimage that the the media name-dropping and photo-illustrating conflation produces.
Unspoofed, the Cyrillic fingerprints still do not closely constrain conclusion to A, and even
less to B.
Another name for the trick DNC used is "Catch a chief" -- a deflection of attention from their own
criminal behaviour. But they should now be really afraid about what can come next from Wikileaks or
elsewhere. I don't think Hillary was capable to understand how easy it is to find corruption, especially
when there's a email trail. And this lack of understanding is a typical feature of a sociopath
As Guardian reported (The
Guardian) Clinton campaign tried old "dog eat my homework" trick blaming everything on Putin and
trying to ignore the content of them and the dirty laundry they expose:
Hillary Clintons campaign has accused Russia of meddling in the 2016 presidential election, saying
its hackers stole Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and released them to foment disunity
in the party and aid Donald Trump.
Clintons campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on Sunday that experts are telling us that Russian
state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose
of helping Donald Trump.
I dont think its coincidental that these emails are being released on the eve of our convention
here, he told CNNs State of the Union, alluding to the partys four-day exercise in unification
which is set to take place this week in Philadelphia.
This isnt my assertion, Mook said. This is what experts are telling us.
In a statement, the Clinton campaign repeated the accusation: This is further evidence the Russian
government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.
Classic scapegoating. As Guardian commenter noted "Why is the (potential) perpetrator of the leak
more significant than the content of the leak??
As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing
e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump.
In any case a major US establishment party explicitly levied it's resources against a candidate it
didn't like behaviors like a Mafioso clan, and when caught red handed start to deflect attention via
corrupt and subservant MSM, changing focus into Russia and Putin instead. Great journalism!"
I find very I interesting that, somehow, the initial DNC leak story failed to make a headline
position (a day late, at that) on the Guardian, but now that it's blown up on other channels,
the DNC's ridiculous conspiracy theory/distraction attempt gets top billing here. Ridiculous.
Why is the (potential) perpetrator of the leak more significant than the content of the leak??
A major US establishment party explicitly levied it's resources against a candidate it didn't
like, and somehow we're talking about Putin instead. Great journalism.
Chanze Jennings -> atopic
The Guardian has sunk to a new low and has entirely no shame. It's a sad day for journalism
when Twitter has more integrity than most news outlets. And they wonder why newspapers are going
the way of the Dodo. Remember when real journalists presented stories with little bias and tried
hard to stick to the facts?
BTW there are some real experts on this and they have a different opinion. Check comments for the
ABC and CNN are essentially part of the DNC propaganda wing. They and most other MSM were trying
to reshape this mess to reduce the amount of damage. Stephanopolis worked for Bill Clinton. And
donated $75,000 to Hillary's campaign. And now he is trying to paint Trump as having ties to the Putin
You are going to have to do a heck of a lot better than that. A Saudi Prince has admitted to
funding a large portion of Hillary's campaign. That is a tie. All the money she took from those
countries while benefiting them as Secretary of State is a tie.
Know Mei > deanbob
"Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding
of what we do," Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Oh, believe me, Debbie, the American people know what
the Democratic Party and the Republican Party does. Both parties embellish, manipulate, grant
high positions to big donors, plot, backstab and railroad the vote of the American electorate.
However, business as usual did not work well for the Republican Party elitists this primary season.
Donald Trump beat the Republican Party elitists at their game. Bernie Sanders attempted to do
the same to the Democratic Party.
I think they are being short-sighted. Trump will in all likelihood win now and I don't see
him sticking to the script. The media has completely betrayed the American public on this
story. From Facebook and Twitter blocking and deleting stories re: same initially - to now with
the non-articles we are getting from the big news agencies. Finding decent, honest news coverage
shouldn't be so hard.
William Carr > Know Mei
Both parties embellish, manipulate, grant high positions to big donors, plot, backstab and
railroad the vote of the American electorate
Tell the American government that they'll have to apply for a VISA before you'll them come
into your country. Personally, I don't know why you'd want the bastards to come for a visit. If
you think your confused now wait until the inmates from the USA finish with their visit.
Obama was never a world-class leader - not even close. An arguably good speaker but not on
topics of state, mostly on ethnic divide, cummunal politics - things that touch heart strings
in disadvantaged sections of society (minorities, unemployed whites, etc).
As a politician he was pedantic (community level); as a statesman, zero.
It's time they nailed everyone in the Obama Administration to the wall, then follow up with
every Republican in a former Bush Administration who is a NeverTrump douche and handcuff them
to one from Obama's group.
The only reason there are Republican - Never Trumpers is that they're terrified all their sins
Once Trump starts reaming Obama and Clinton, they'll turn on Bush, etc.
Someone should shit or get off the pot with this Russian stuff... The REAL STORY IS SPYING
ON US CITIZENS AND CONGRESS AND OBAMA'S USE OF CLASSIFIED INTEL AND COMEY BRENNAN CLAPPER CRIMES.....
Lets get to it
There is nothing Russia could divulge that would come as a surprise to most of us here. At
this point it would just be a confirmation of the highly corrupt and immoral behavior we've seen
this government engage in for decades now. Besides, if we couldn't throw Bush and Cheney in the
slammer after what they did, what hope would we have to hold Obama and Clinton accountable? Until
further notice, this class of folks is above the law.
The Progressive Liberal Democrats who have been staunch allies with the Russians for nearly
50 years have now turned on them to hide their own failure in running Hillary. Big mistake Mr.
The Russians are looking out for Russia. They will uncork a plethora of very bad news for you,
including all the private dealings Progressives have had with them ('ala Ted Kennedy asking Andropov
to help screw Reagan during his last election) and the timing couldn't be better for the mid-term
The Progressives are no friend of America and as the word gets out to mainstream America, the
result will be devastating to the Democratic Party. Good. About time.
MORE INVESTIGATIONS OF DEMOCRATS!!!! FRY HILLARY!!!
The Russians have their own shit to keep secret and when that is less important and damaging
then they will release the flood gates of hell on BHO and crew as well as Hillary and the Bushites.
Not until, but I suspect that time is approaching or very near. The tangled web of sociopaths
and psychopaths that control us, Hey ?
Most of the American population are so ignorant of the physical laws of nature that they prefer
to believe what the government tells them to believe instead of straining their brains to exercise
a little common sense. I think the disappearing 757 airliners at the Pentagon and Shanksville
are the most blatant of the government lies since they require no knowledge of high-rise building
construction. How people can ignore this kind of thing would be a mystery except that almost everyone
gets their news from the TeeVee.
Fortunately, liberal thugs have not succeeded in derailing Trump-Putin cooperation, even in
the most difficult areas: There is complete Russian-American military coordination in Iraq and
Syria, even where Turkey and Iran disagree. Russia is allowing the US to arm the Kurds against
ISIS in Syria, and Russia has asked Iran to withdraw its troops and militias from Iraq and Syria,
exactly as Trump wants.
Russia can pull out of SWIFT any time they want. Europe depends on their gas. Russia can demand
payment in rubles, too, or gold.
Europe's nuclear energy has already gone off a cliff, due to all the bad reactor parts from
the French. That makes Russian energy much more valueable, and they don't have enough LNG receiving
facilities to buy elsewhere in any significant amounts.
The only option now for the NWO is a quiet retirement, or mass global nuclear suicide. Any
"The US Department of State has more than once asked us not to announce planned visits until
the last minute. This is not our tradition. We have been operating openly for years, but we have
respected the requests we have received from our colleagues in Washington in the past few years
. But what happened after that? First, the US Department of State asked us to keep the planned
visit quiet and not to announce it until the last possible minute, until we coordinated the date.
We did as they asked. But a day or two later the information was leaked by the US State Department
and sometimes by the US administration. Frankly, this put Russia and the media in a strange situation,
because they didn't know who to believe the official agencies or the many leaks."
And as of this moment, the second quietest person in the room just happens to be...John Kerry.
John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 national campaign chairman, may
have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed
company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation's
Joule Unlimited Technologies - financed in part by a Russian firm -
Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based
entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.
When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President
Obama's special counsellor, the company officially
issued him 75,000
common shares of stock.
The Schedule B section of the federal government's form 278 which - requires financial disclosures
for government officials - required Podesta to "report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your
spouse, or dependent children of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities
when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000."
The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles - or $35 million
- from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.
Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together
with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year.
Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential
Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company.
"I think in this case where you're talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the
collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any
foreign interest that you may have," he told TheDCNF in an interview.
The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability
report issued last year.
But Podesta didn't pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the
firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only
on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.
Leonidio is registered in Delaware as a limited liability corporation. Podesta listed the address
of his daughter, Megan Rouse, in the incorporation papers. His mother and father also appear to be
co-owners of Leonidio.
TheDCNF made multiple inquiries to OGE and received no reply. TheDCNF inquiries to Mr. Podesta
were not returned.
Like Ron Paul says - since the government spies on everyone, it's a certainty that the last
administration spied on Trump.
By the same token, since it's guaranteed that there are pedophiles existing in positions of
power pretty much everywhere (not just in the Catholic church), one can make a blind guess that
there is a pedo ring inside the government and be right.
My suspicion is that pizzagate conspiracy is invented, but regardless of that fact, real pedophiles
in the government are scared shitless that if the authorities begin digging, they'll be discovered.
That's why they want pizzagate talk silenced.
"... "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night. ..."
"... Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed. ..."
"... The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation. ..."
"... This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted? ..."
"... I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar. ..."
"... CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment. ..."
"... Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them. ..."
"... Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles. ..."
"... Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!! ..."
Following a day of drama involving the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin
Nunes, who has been under constant onslaught by Democrats ever since his disclosure last
week that Trump had indeed been the object of surveillance, and whose Democrat peer at
the Intel panel, Adam Schiff, on Monday night
called for Nunes to recuse himself
, moments ago Trump waded into the news cycle when
he asked on Twitter why the House Intelligence Committee is not investigating the
Clintons for various ties of their own to Russia. He then slammed the ongoing
anti-Russian witch hunt, saying "the Russia story is a hoax."
"Why isn't the House
Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to
go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of
Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!"
Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night.
Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the
Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech....
Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various
occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who
is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without
sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes
had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental
surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about
whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes
Democratic lawmakers have now called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's
probe into Russia's interference in the United States presidential election. Nunes on
Monday evening said the chairman would not step aside from the investigation.
The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia
probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance
information as part of that investigation.
I work with smart folks. Today I was listening to a guy go on about how Trump
might be guilty of treason. I asked about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation
and some of the issues brought up in this article. Crickets...
I am worried.
Trump may be a lot of distasteful things. I don't see treason here. But if
smart folks buy into this... aw hell we are in for it.
This is the part where he regrets saying that he was going to leave the
Clintons alone because they were good people and have been through enough. Our
election system needs to be investigated before the next election also.
Obviously we need hearings on the CIA, NSA, all of it. Of course who will
oversee the hearings? What a joke.
Or is this where Trump plays dumb and says "I
good people. But that was before I knew XYZ"?
Trump knows they're not
good people. I mean, he just asked why they aren't under investigation.
Trump knows Bill is a rapist and a predator. Trump knows why Hillary as
SOS refused to use required .gub email, why she set up a secret server with
classified info on it, why she wiped 30k+ yoga emails.
Trump personally has to have some things he can point to in order to
prove his impartiality when the DOJ finally starts looking into the Bubba
Foundation. He can claim that he is impartial and say in a nice tweet,
"Hey, I thought they were nice people. Now I see how she fooled all her
voters" and still have her sent to Federal Prison along with Bubba and
The government wasn't designed to work that way.
It is a mistake (and it always was) to expect the Presidency to
Your sentiments are dangerous, in part because of your expectations, and in
part because you give a pass to corrupt points of control.
But don't feel
bad -- nobody here (or anywhere, really) seems to give a damn.
"... Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto competitor. ..."
The former scout-the illegal immigrant, Andrey Bezrukov, has worked
a long time in the USA, has told to the correspondent "News" Nikolay Surkov,
why the United States needs Ukraine and why Russia got together with China
to build greater Eurasia.
- The cold war ended over 20 years ago. Why the U.S.
still refers to Russia as the enemy?
- Cold war is only an episode in the relations between our
countries. There are two levels on which to consider the basis of
relationship between the two countries. The first is the level of objective
geopolitical realities, the situation of our countries and their role in the
world system. The USA declare that their wellbeing depends on the vitality
of the global system that they've built. They are a Central part of this
system. While it exists, they will be in a privileged position. Their
primary national interest - the maintenance of this global system.
In the cold war the USSR was a geopolitical competitor. He
dominated in Eurasia, creating an area in which American influence did not
pass. He created a pole for those who were dissatisfied with the American
Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a
competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of
security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would
be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit
on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of
Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto
What then should be considered at the second level?
- The second level is ideological. From our side there is no
ideological barrier in relations with the United States. If the U.S. is not
trying to impose their way of life and creating problems for our state, we
have no problems with them. They, unfortunately, have problems. They relate
to the generation that did not devoiles in the cold war. The attitude of the
ruling elite towards Russia as an enemy or competitor will not leave. They
had no revaluation, for it was not the cause. They consider themselves
winners. But because their problem isn't solved, Russia did not become a
state that does what they want, they have this element of irritation from
the unfinished task.
In addition, the independent foreign policy of Russia is a
challenge the people in the USA who preach American exceptionalism. These
are people who not just see themselves as exceptional Americans, and
consider it a blessing, ready by force to impose their position on others.
This group is very closely related to the cold war. But it is still very
closely linked with the principles of the Democratic party that America
should be ideals. For this you can to impose their understanding of things
to other countries.
I think in a few years the geopolitical component will remain, and
ideological can just move away. Will be rethinking that America no
longer has the right nor the capacity to impose their principles on
others. After some time, leave those personalities that are now the
conductors of the ideology that emerged during the cold war.
There is an ethnic component. Around the neo-conservatives
many people who are ethnically or ideologically associated with anti-Russian
diasporas of Eastern European countries, which believe that Russia dominated
them. They too will be gone anyway.
- Why work so hard to fight with Russia? Unless China
is now a much more serious competitor?
- Really, now is not Russia, but China is, from the point of
view of the Americans, the main challenge for the global system. China's
economy is so large that it attracts all of Asia and the influence of the
Americans on these countries and markets is reduced.
The US is trying to bring China out of the brackets. To fence
off a piece of Asia. Through security agreements with the surrounding
countries of China. And through the construction of a TRANS-Pacific
partnership without China.
The periods of tension in relations with the US are
predetermined and unavoidable?
- Our interest is to ensure the security around our borders to
neighbors no one told that to trade with Russia or not to trade, to war with
Russia or not to fight.
In this sense, the conflict in Ukraine objective. If they need
Ukraine as a buffer against us, we need it too, we are ethnically very
close, this is pre-Soviet geopolitical space. Its economy is part of our
economy. It is our civilizational area. Our interest there is obvious.
However, the USA is beginning to experience a redefinition of
its role in the world. They haven't reached a complete rethinking. They're
just starting to see the problems and the inadequacy of its policies.
Rethinking will happen in a few years. Then the ideological component in our
relationship is minimized. This may be due to the new President, but will
not necessarily occur in the period of his reign. American policy is
evolving cycles. Now ends the cycle that began with Reagan.
- That is, in 7-8 years we can count on change?
Then we may have a completely different relationship between
countries. But their and our interests will remain.
Objectively, Americans want to antagonize China's neighbors -
Japan, India, us. Therefore, it is important for us to build long-term
non-competitive relationship with China and India.
Our goal is to provide yourself a quiet life in the greater
Eurasia. It is hampered by the lack of security and lack of infrastructure
linking Russia's economy with the growing economies of Asia. The policy of
pairing the EEU and the silk road in building the economic infrastructure.
China and Russia have an interest in stabilizing the greater Eurasia. Then
there will be rapid economic growth.
- What happens to the American political system? Why
the Republicans are unable to put any decent presidential candidate?
In the US there is a problem by. The American people in the
face of elites, particularly business elites, was assigned to conduct the
political Affairs political superstructure - the Congress, the parties of
the ruling class, since the capital itself will not engage in politics. The
seller has the job of defending the interests of the customer. For a long
time, the ruling group did. But now the ruling group broke away from the
understanding of objective tasks. Beginning to act as she wants. In America
I understand that policy has become less effective, it does not reach the
set goals. If this continued, it will lead to the decline of US influence in
the world. The elite do not like it.
We can say that American politics is like an airplane that
flies on autopilot, which was set 30 years ago. But the pilot had already
begun to understand that it's time to get back into the cockpit and change
course. The request for change by coming from two sides. Trump is the voice
of the business elite. Sanders speaks on behalf of the young intellectual
elite. Mature change in the political superstructure. The authorities will
be renewed at the expense of people who are new understand the situation and
can propose a new course.
Andrei Bezrukov was born on 30 August 1960 in the city of
Kansk of Krasnoyarsk region. Graduated from Tomsk state University majoring
in history. In 2000 he graduated from the School of public management John
F. Kennedy, Harvard University with a master's degree. Colonel intelligence
Together with his wife Elena Vavilova many years spent on
illegal intelligence work. Under the name Donald Heathfield led consultancy
company specializing in government and corporate strategic forecasting and
planning. Was arrested in June 2010 in the U.S. as a result of betrayal.
He has state awards - the order "For merits before Fatherland" IV
degrees, medals. Currently - Advisor to the President of the company "Rosneft".
A member of the club "Valdai".
"... The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple. ..."
"... They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way. ..."
"... Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects. ..."
"... US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending. ..."
"... The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media... ..."
Are the people who consider our current rulers to be "American Taliban" inclined to become
"leakers" of government activities against the citizens, because they definitely stop to consider
the country as their own and view it as occupied by dangerous and violent religious cult?
Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period.
That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US
neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God
knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution
of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard
of living and uncertain job prospects.
ilsm -> libezkova... March 26, 2017 at 05:42 AM
I see the angst over Sessions talking to a Russia diplomat twice as a red herring.
US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made
an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending.
The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human
rights and the US' Bill of Rights.
The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their
There are cliques of employees in all these govt agencies who have political and
religious views just like the rest of the world, except they have access to spy
satellites, phone tapping, and every other spy tool just like Snowden tried to
expose. Finally after watching the evil satan worshipping liberals for all these
years use these tool to further the NWO thru clintons and hussein, the patriot
Christian conservative side is finally leaking info they have access to to TRUMP
and he is able to fight back a little. THis is good versus evil, no doubt in my
mind. Choose this day whom you will serve. Especially you crossroad demon from
I read that info/ letter on another blog. I hope Dennis and Larry
succeed, but there is one thing I don't quite understand. If Montgomery left
the NSA a few years ago how can he have hard evidence Trump and his team were
surveilled ? ( other than one of his former workmates telling him). If he has
just been told that makes it hard to prove unless the workmate took a copy of
the data and gave it to Montgomery.
"... "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. ..."
"... "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it." ..."
"... "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded. ..."
"... Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult. ..."
"... "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. ..."
"... "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count." ..."
"... Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..." ..."
NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all
the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as
well as the White House."
Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told
Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.
"They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting
all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.
"That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he
said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards,
things like that, all of it."
"Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower
who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members
of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the
White House," Binney said.
"And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is
to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should
be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it
actually happens," he said.
"I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.
Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually
makes stopping attacks more difficult.
"This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they
can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.
"Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been
going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was
challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."
Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor
Bringing history more up to date, this is Stalinism, i.e., fascism. As John
T. Flynn states, "Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Neo-fascism of course
is Stalinism-blame Hitler.
So, is it fascism?
Yes, says Major Todd Pierce (retired) in an interview with Philip Weiss of
Mondoweiss - who says NSA whistle blower Bill Binney has "got to be one of the smartest
people in the world, I don't think that's an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest
people at the NSA.
Says Weiss: "And he agrees with me fully. Because he's seen the NSA. We're
a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was
applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what
it really means, and that ultimately is, ultramilitarism and authoritarianism combined with
an expansionist foreign policy. And that's us-what you can see us becoming."
The Roman Empire's death was far more complicated than "moral rot" and its "currency
devaluation." Read some history books.
Chris Hedges makes the observation that ALL empires that are scourges of the earth,
eventually turn inwards. As the empire begins its fatal decline, the terror they inflicted on
outsiders, is then turned against its own citizens.
We now see that happening in America. Banks, corporations, intel/military, etc. are turning
inward: destroying meaningful employment, humane health care, and pilfering billions of $s
reserved for the 1%.
Just Another Vi... -> FriendlyAquaponics Mar 25, 2017 8:05 PM
A video worth revisiting......
... Obama criticizes Donald Trump endlessly....over Trumps assertions that the election is
telling the candidate to "stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."
That's right, the DOD. They can't go completely rogue, without the explicit or implicit
approval of the Secretary of Defense and his Deputies.
It is rather phoney and hypocritical of any POTUS - including Pres. Thump - to moan about the
NSA, without loping off heads at the DOD and NSA. By that, I include all the Deputies, who do
the real work and know the real secrets.
It's time that Thump had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with all these guys. Else he's part of the
problem, and no amount of sugar coating can stop a turd being a turd.
TheReplacement -> HRClinton Mar 25, 2017 9:42 PM
In an honest world, sure.
In reality, no. Like Binney said, they don't have to do anything they don't like because
NOBODY can prove they haven't complied with orders. There is nobody who can watch the
watchers. They can blackmail anyone.
'Gosh, I have no idea how that child porn got on my computer.'
CIA or NSA knows exactly how it got there. They put it there.
Washington's political infighting has blocked President Trump's plans for a new
détente with Russia but also has left the global playing field open for Russian and
Chinese advances in expanding their influence, explains Gilbert Doctorow.
By Gilbert Doctorow
As Democrats and the mainstream U.S. media focus intensely on still unproven
charges of Russian election meddling to explain Hillary Clinton's surprising defeat,
the furor has forced an embattled President Trump to retreat from his plans to
cooperate with Russia on fighting terrorism and other global challenges.
Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10,
2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)
Amid the anti-Russian hysteria, Trump's Cabinet members and United Nations
ambassador have gone out of their way to reiterate the tough policy positions of the
Obama administration with respect to Russia, underlining that nothing has changed.
For its part, Congress has plunged into McCarthyistic hearings aimed at Trump
supporters who may have met with Russians before the 2016 elections.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has duly noted these developments in Washington. In Moscow,
the breakthrough in relations that some had hoped for is now dismissed as improbable.
On the other hand, while the United States is tearing itself apart in partisan
fighting, Russia is getting a much-needed breather from the constant ratcheting up of
pressure from the West that it experienced over the past three years.
We hear from Russian elites more and more how they plan to proceed on the
international stage in the new circumstances. The byword is self-reliance and pursuit
of the regional and global policies that have been forming over the past couple of
years as the confrontation with the United States escalated.
These policies have nothing to do with some attack on the Baltic States or Poland,
the nightmare scenarios pushed by neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in
the U.S. and the European Union. The Russian plans also have nothing to do with
subversion of elections in France or Germany, the other part of the fevered
imaginations of the West.
Instead, the Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that
together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the
Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War
system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources.
In other words, the Russians are envisioning a future world order whose contours
harken back to the Nineteenth Century. In terms of details, the Russians are now
inseparably wed to China for reasons of mutual economic and security interest on the
global stage. The same is becoming true of their relationship with Iran at the
regional level of the Greater Middle East.
The Russian elites also take pride in the emerging military, economic and
geopolitical relationships with countries as far removed as Libya, Egypt, Turkey,
Pakistan and Thailand. News about breakthroughs with each of these countries is
heralded on daily television programming.
Russian elites note that the United States has misunderstood Moscow's position in
Syria from the start of the war there. Russia's priority was never to keep the Assad
regime in power, but rather to maintain a foothold in the Middle East. Put narrowly,
Russia was determined to maintain its naval base at Tarsus, which is important to
support Russia's presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. More broadly, Moscow's goal
was to restore Russian influence in the strategic region where Russia once was a
significant player before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
In May 2016, Russian marchers honoring family members who fought in World War II.
(Photo from RT)
Russia's loss of Eastern Europe is also not forgotten, though American hegemony
there is acknowledged as a reality of the present. But nothing lasts forever, and the
Russians expect to be back as a major force in the region, not by military conquest,
but by virtue of economic and strategic logic, which favors them in the long term.
Though many East European elites have been bought off by the United States and the
European Union, many common citizens have been major losers from the American led
post-Cold War order, suffering from de-industrialization and large-scale emigration
to more developed E.U. countries, reaching as much as 25 percent of the general
population in some places. These Eastern European countries have little to offer
Western Europe except for tourist destinations, whereas their shared potential for
trade with Russia is immense.
This past weekend, Russian television news carried images of demonstrations in
Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova that you did not see on Euronews. The object of
this popular wrath was billionaire financial speculator George Soros and his "Open
Society" affiliates. Russian news commentary explained that these demonstrations -
operating under the banner of "Go Home Soros" - became possible now because the Trump
administration has dropped U.S. support for him.
It would be naïve not to see some official Russian assistance to these coordinated
demonstrations across a large swath of Eastern Europe, but the Russians were simply
giving the United States a taste of its own medicine, since U.S.-sponsored
"non-governmental organizations" have been busy subverting legitimate Euro-skeptic
governments in these countries in cooperation with Soros's NGOs.
Not Your Grandfather's Cold War
But there are key differences between what is happening now and in the Cold War
days. The original Cold War was characterized not only by military and geopolitical
rivalry of the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It also was an
ideological rivalry between on one side free market capitalism and parliamentary
democracy and on the other planned economies and monolithic top-down Communist
President Richard Nixon with his then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in
Starting with President Richard Nixon, a policy of détente was put in place, which
embodied the principle of co-existence of these competing principles of organizing
human society for the sake of world peace. There are those who maintain we have no
New Cold War today because the ideological dimension is lacking, although there are
obvious differences over principles between the socially liberal U.S./E.U. and the
more socially conservative Russia. But those differences hardly constitute a
full-blown ideological conflict.
The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global
governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because
there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include:
globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus
interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of
liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of
forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism. The West generally
has favored the first of these options while Russia and China lead a bloc of nations
generally favoring the second options.
On the campaign trail and in his Inaugural speech, Donald Trump spoke in Realist
terms suggesting that the U.S. would abandon its Idealist ideology of the preceding
25 years, which involved coercive "regime change" strategies to impose Western
political values and economic systems around the world. Instead, Trump suggested that
he would do business with Russia and with the world at large without imposing U.S.
solutions, essentially accepting the principles that the Russians have been promoting
ever since they began their public pushback to the United States in 2007.
However, given Trump's retreat on foreign policy in recent weeks while under
fierce attack from Washington power centers asserting possible collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia we may be left with something akin to the re-set that
Obama introduced at the start of his rule in 2009 which never went as far as
détente/co-existence. It was limited to cooperation in isolated areas where U.S. and
Russian interests were deemed to coincide.
The only difference we might see from the embattled Trump administration is less
of a penchant for "regime change" operations and a resumption of some bilateral
contacts with Russia that were cut off when Obama decided to penalize Russia for its
intervention in Crimea and the Donbass in 2014.
Assuming that Washington's neocon Republicans and hawkish Democrats don't push
Trump into a desperate political corner, he might at least engage Moscow with a more
polite and diplomatic tone. That might be better than some of the alternatives, but
it is surely not an onset of a new collaborative Golden Age.
The scaling back in expectations of how far the Trump administration will go in
improving relations with Russia makes sense because of another reality that has
become clear now that his team of advisers and implementers is filling out, namely
that there is no one in his "kitchen cabinet" or in his administration who can guide
the neophyte president as he tries to negotiate a new global order and to do a "big
deal" with Vladimir Putin, such as Trump may have hoped to strike.
Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner lacks the experience and depth to be a
world-class strategic thinker. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corporate
skills from his years at Exxon-Mobil but also lacks a strategic vision. Many other
key jobs have gone to military generals who may be competent administrators but have
limited political or diplomatic experience. There was talk of guidance coming from
Henry Kissinger, but he has not been seen or heard from recently, and it is doubtful
that at his advanced age and frailty he could provide consistent counsel.
As Trump struggles to survive the cumulative attacks on his fledgling
administration, he is also distracted from the reality of a rapidly changing world.
If and when he does get to concentrate on the geopolitical situation, he may well
have to play catch up with Russia and China as they make deals with other regional
players and fill the vacuum left by the ongoing American political disorder.
Assuming Trump can bring on board talented advisers with strategic depth, it would
still take enormous vision and diplomatic skills to strike a "big deal" that could
begin to end the violent chaos that has swept across much of the world since 2001. If
and when that becomes possible, such a deal might look like a "Yalta-2" with a
triangular shape involving the U.S., Russia and China.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book,
Does Russia Have a Future?
was published in August 2015.
March 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm
Stuff your silly divide and rule. How about live and let live? I
presume this is what you do in your private life. I dont feel any
threat at all from Russia, Iran or China despite the Chicken Little
crap from our media and bought and paid for pollies on a daily
basis. So let's all chill out and tell our pollies to shut ..f..k
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Your words reminded me of what I learned about Hitler. In Europe,
all my teachers of history in primary and secondary school
emphasised that if Hitler was smart enough to attack one country at
a time, he would have won the WW2. For example, when he attacked
Poland and Britain declared war on Germany, he should have tried to
finish off Britain instead of trying to win it over whilst
attacking Soviet Union.
Perhaps the US/Israeli leadership suffers
from the same type of hubris, believing that it can globalize the
World by conquering both Russia and China. Of course, the
US/Israeli MIC believes that the bigger the enemy the higher the
March 23, 2017 at 1:35 am
KIza my hunch is the American Israeli MIC is blinded by money,
and what they consider success. Here could have been the moment
for America to truly be the that shinning city upon the hill,
but instead we took the advice of the Project for a New American
21st Century, a project so evil it surpasses the stupidity of Dr
Strangelove and here we are. If the money could see a profit in
humanitarian needs, wow wouldn't that be lovely.
My grandmother always told me the bigger they are, the harder
they fall, and America better watch out now it's gonna get it's
ass kicked good if it doesn't wise up. I love my country, and
that remark I just made isn't a reflection on our uniformed
military, but these genius in DC fighting each other, and laying
down some really made stuff on Russia, isn't good, and it ain't
going to amount to much more than pain in the end. The whole
idea of this 21st century America is nothing but a plan to
This fricking media we have isn't going to stop until Trump
gets impeached, or we really do something stupid to Russia. The
sense of all of this in my eyes always leads back to that
Project for the new American Century piece of crap. America had
it all to win over the love of the world, why with just the
rhetoric and spirit it was enough to try and strive for, but now
ah not so much. It's not too late, but I don't at this moment in
time see what good is on the horizon in the meantime I'm going
to just try and appreciate whatever it is there is to appreciate
take care Joe
March 23, 2017 at 3:35 am
I agree Joe, as a project of its Dual Citizens PNAC is the
root of most evil in US. It is not a true American project.
It is a project for global domination of Israel using US, its
people and its resources, as means to an end. Who needs to
discuss the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
when PNAC is available in plain sight. I am just surprised
how few US people understand this. Thanks for your great
comment as usual.
Bob Van Noy
March 22, 2017 at 10:55 am
"Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian
countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is
important to understand that the Russian vision is a future
multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two
superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited
resources." Gilbert Doctorow
Again. "The real area of contention is
in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this
level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there
is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which
include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign
policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order
established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other
forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect
for local differences; idealism versus realism." Gilbert Doctorow
To me the choice, were we ever given a choice as voters, would
clearly be: 1) A future multi-polar world and, 2) a balance of forces
and respect for local differences. The choice doesn't seem so very
controversial? However, the default position of the Neocons and the
liberal interventionists has always been to double down rather than
negotiate, so I expect more saber rattling aggression
Jimmy Carter stated USA is no longer a democracy, true. Idealism is
the opposite of true USA motives, pure machivellian greed.
March 22, 2017 at 3:34 pm
Brad Owen that's the way I see it too. I don't think that Trump
needs Bannon or his son-in-law to be strategic. Strategic thinking
(one-upping your opponent, outsmarting him, taking what's not
yours, outright lying, propaganda, coups, trying to control the
whole world) has been the policy for too long. I think Trump has a
particular vision, and he's, as you say, playing rope-a-dope with
the "strategic" thinkers.
I see Trump as wanting to create free
(but FAIR) trade. I see him wanting to stay out of other countries'
business, concentrating on the home base, which has been sorely
neglected for the last 20 30 years.
I think people totally underestimate Trump.
This is really a war between those who favor
globalism/internationalism thinking (open borders, absence of a
nation state or culture, multinational corporations controlling the
world, one-world order) and those who favor nation states, culture,
borders, fair and open trade with other countries.
Trump is not a professional politician. He is not a great
orator, slick or polished. But I believe he loves his country more
than the other bought-and-paid-for politicians who govern according
to who is paying them the most money on any given day.
I think that the way Trump looks at business is if his
competitor gets a property on one block, he gets one on the next.
Everybody is happy. He doesn't set out to ensure that his
competitor is crushed. He doesn't lie about him, try to get others
to sanction him, try to bar him from doing business.
March 22, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Hi Brad, nice comment, I think you will like this article in
case you missed it
And just to add to your comment, Russia and USA are working very
close in Syria. Not directly of course, but Syrian army and the
Kurds (who are heavily supported by USA from air) are making
great progress in the Norther part of Syria. In fact they even
cooperated to block further advances of the Turks (NATO member
btw). So I think that the RU-USA relationship is better than the
media is trying to show us
March 23, 2017 at 5:21 am
I agree,Arseniy. We are two of the three Nations (China being
the third Nation) PRIMARILY responsible for securing the
peace and guiding development for the entire World we three.
This was Roosevelt's vision,ejected by the Anglophile
intelligence community the moment he died; recovered
fortunately, by our mutual ally China, in the BRI policy.
Russia and USA will be the Gateway managers of the World
LandBridge (tunnel, spanning Bering Straits with mag-lev rail
lines, pipelines, power lines, communication lines) that ties
the whole World together. This was thought of in Lincoln's
time a way to bypass the powerful British and other European
maritime Empires. Russia had the foresight to sell us Alaska
towards this end. Russia ALWAYS supported our stand AGAINST
European Empires (especially the British Empire), even in the
Soviet days. Together with our friend China, AND the rest of
the World's Nations we'll continue to progress and grow and
move out, into the Solar System to industrialize the moon and
Mars and other moons and planets, after we put away these
childish, pointless, sinful, wars. Read Executive
Intelligence Review website, where these ideas are
championed. Remember Krafft Erikhe (spelling?) whose vision
of Man the Solar Species inspired our early space program.
Our next, centuries-long Era will be our inhabiting of our
Solar System, after war has been abolished as obsolete and
March 22, 2017 at 12:23 pm
It is a sad day when detente and cooperation is replaced with
demonization and belligerence to boot. When will our American
leadership finally come to grips that this world isn't flat? Is
liberating a nation for the sake of our installing an American fast
food chain worth the price of so many innocent lives who get
displaced, or worst yet killed by American bombs the price people must
pay to join the NWO? Does anyone believe that by doing these things we
are making any real and sincere new friends can you say blowback?
All this fuss over Putin and Russian interference is putting President
Trump in a difficult box. Why even Putin critic Masha Gessen is
Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, and if we include
journalist well then Masha Gessen for at least on this Russia-Gate
story is making charges similar to those of us who see this witch
hunt for what it really is. Now don't blast me for posting a link
to Gessen's article but since others are quoting her I thought you
may wish to read her own words.
If America can pull through these tough and difficult times all
in one piece, and regain some sense of sanity and fairness of
values, this moment in time will be shelved along side the McCarthy
era of the lowest of times in America.
March 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm
I would not be as generous to Masha Gessen as you are Joe. Ms
Gessen is very anti-Russian and anti-Putin, but she recognises
the damage the current DNC policy against her two pet-hates
does. After all the US high-tempereture emotional madness blows
out, Russia will end up standing even taller because the US
Democrats were crying wolf. I have been highlighting this same
point for a while now the Democrats are really working to
benefit Russia, they are the really traitorous fifth column they
accuse Trump of. This is why Ms Gessen is distancing herself
from the mindless bunch.
March 22, 2017 at 11:46 pm
KIza please don't read my posting Gessen's article as an
endorsement. I only posted it due to the fact that sites like
libertblitzkreig and Leftist Paul Street on counterpunch
talked about Gessen's concerns. You know how I've mentioned
in many of my comments how I think Vladimir Putin is the only
adult in the room when it comes to our world's future. I'm
all for distributed power, and I am no fan, and never was of
You are on too something though, when you mention to how
Masha is no doubt distancing herself away from the awaiting
disaster the Democrate's are leading us into. This whole
fiasco is troubling when you think of how Hillary's conniving
has brought us all to this place. It would be great if
Hillary were brought to justice, but then again so much for
I'll leave you with this, keep your friends close and your
"... Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA. The massive, long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center. As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money". ..."
March 23, 2017 at 1:04 pm
Good historywonder why Rachel The Mouth Maddow never did it in her time wasting opening segments
where she repeats herself over and over to numb our minds and spend her time when she could be saying
something insightful. Maybe that's why. PS. Why does she never invite Robert Parry on to comment?
Oh. I see.
March 23, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Because she's paid $7 million per year to talk about some things, and not others.
"Jill Stein and Russia" and the results will illuminate the Democratic Party Echo Chamber
March 23, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Maddow has proven herself an indisputable part of "the establishment media going whole-hog
on these vague suspicions". That is, she is carrying tubs of water for her Deep State masters.
Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can
easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and
Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA. The massive,
long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center.
As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money".
"... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
"... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
"... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
"... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
"... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
"... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
"... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
"... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
"... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
"... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
"... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate
unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he
makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.
The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff.
There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major
sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute
bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated
the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors
of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for
his own hanging.
Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am
Great post Anna.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am
Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan.
US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies
to the Afghan Taliban".
It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official
gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say
"the dog ate my homework".
Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously
all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.
In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :
"The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass
rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate Sinclair's
fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:
"was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering.
The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced
the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for
his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much
speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen
he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird
of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and
both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."
In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even
heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the
early 20th century.
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm
The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties)
are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that
69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've
been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's
article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled
by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual
in my experience of watching Washington.
Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney
in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":
From that article:
"For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence
and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The
Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail
that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into
a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter
of global commerce and industry."
Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the
level of unity they will accept.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm
I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being
labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten
"donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama
got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they
are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist
traitors. They are Ziocrats.
J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy
in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that
Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.
Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire
policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the
Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.
US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to
maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over
Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special
relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that
their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic
self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs
of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease
UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother
Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her
out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe
will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of
the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide
& conquer is over, finished.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist
Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging
mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa
during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western
They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via
The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.
Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also.
Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.
rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm
All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection
is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early,
although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was
fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there
was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign
for the UN pressure.
No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control
US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it
or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.
Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am
Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and
a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional
enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct
from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering
under the same yoke of Empire as are we).
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists.
Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are
The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million
Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist
propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial
I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control.
US mass media.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm
To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60
percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less
than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by
No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The
DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.
No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to
the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got
no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm
In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website
that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored
amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium
News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism
and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians
from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites
in the US against African-Americans.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking.
There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying,
in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding.
I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama
in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and
Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that
"the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.
Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals.
PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II,
as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices
to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.
"The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a
dangerous illusion that needs debunking."
Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs
debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating
procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws nothing new, so therefore
presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".
Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American
financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?
It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians
fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned
that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being
only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened the titanic
reaction had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion
that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently
that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed
the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request
for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry
facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested
response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve".
Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break then after
the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.
My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be
triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but
another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news
during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders
capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled
goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time
friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers
on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant
located in the top floors of one of the towers because his wife fortunately convinced him to
keep an appointment with his dermatologist.
Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.
Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by
Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available
The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over
$100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."
In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel
lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably
making that library the most expensive ever.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from
US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of
such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides
that could easily obscure the feedback.
You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations
a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps
know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm
In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is
consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the
U.S. Army's director of assassination training.
Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which
was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other
Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"
Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes,
whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."
In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.
Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're
all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons
back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it
goes Israel some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were
he works with those people they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions
for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia,
which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire.
They're you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."
Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.
Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something
on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "
Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."
Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by
Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to
trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because
they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag
wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about
A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death
threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed
and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail
of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep
to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.
backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am
JWalters fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm
That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military
staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They
would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.
Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism
students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.
Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm
A military buildup=an empire in decline.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm
before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.
what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show
and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation
and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans,
that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering
on Goebbels and his total war.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848
Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm
I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing
and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."
Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means
looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative
evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward détente or acceptance
of a multi-polar world are worth considering.
Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still
considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke
screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying
to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.
Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?
For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops
in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's
going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander?
Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness
in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But
this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations
with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.
Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to
be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position.
Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something
approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered
to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other
Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm
What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another
needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War
on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.
LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm
The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination
promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest,
Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have
continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed
has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found
us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry ..
I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional
Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake?
The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,,
the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm
i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the
nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American
holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp
by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis
for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated
with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria.
the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
"[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's
it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either
political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are
being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s)
to benefit private capital.
I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal
economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted
calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and
a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures
We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being
of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons
stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present
system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something
even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."
ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member
needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I
repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm
It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least
a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with
Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion
in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.
Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm
I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.
Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed
from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately
branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably
someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat
the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I
worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their
only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into
a political football.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm
The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the
principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized
via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom
and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am
Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called
intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes
me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will
disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have
become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal
tool of the intellectuals rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .
Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm
They have no decency, sir.
At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.
Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm
"At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."
The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue
to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.
When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention
in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen
future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.
Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.
"... At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom. ..."
Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a "trading places" moment
as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans,
writes Robert Parry.
Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling,
national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive
of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
This "trading places" moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the
House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may
have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.
Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence
of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called "circumstantial evidence of collusion,"
a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version
of Joe McCarthy.
Schiff cited by name a number of Trump's aides and associates who as The New York Times reported
were "believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians." These Americans,
whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump's second
campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump's first national security
adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: "Is it possible
that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy
coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are
not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated."
As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for
several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based
on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.
Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required
multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what
had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North's secret
Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign's undermining of President Carter's Iran-hostage
negotiations in 1980.
For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted
to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories
contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations
By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going
whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have
provided some help or advice to Trump.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room
at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department
Photo] Given the paucity of evidence both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails
and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump's advisers colluded in that
process it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically
and possibly remove him from office.
But those machinations require the Democratic Party's continued demonization of Russia and implicitly
put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the
fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing
elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language
in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions
of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is
officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).
The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the
violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine's ethnic Russian
minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine.
The more complex reality is simply summed up as a "Russian invasion."
Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force
"regime change" on Bashar al-Assad's secular government even if that risks another military confrontation
with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.
In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It's
not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it's just that the Democrats have become all
that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.
Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major
parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military
spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations
(although they were far from pacifists).
Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions
used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations
for other wars.
Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was
modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing
regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua's Sandinistas and other leftists.
The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s around
Reagan's Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush's attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed
nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as "weak on defense" from George McGovern to Jimmy
Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.
But the Democratic Party's resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George
H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, in which the President
less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war
victory after which Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."
Fearful of being labeled disloyal to "the troops" and "weak," national Democrats scrambled to
show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas
to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.
During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining
harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade
the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda."
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats including presidential
hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton voted to authorize President George W. Bush
to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the
obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads.
The American public's revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to
Barack Obama's election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young
administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama
also became comfortable with continuing Bush's wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing
war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.
By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into
the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against
Sen. Bernie Sanders urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create "no
fly zones" but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump's hopes to reduce hostilities with
Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin's "puppet."
Ironically, Trump's shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party's interest in pushing
for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged
"softness" toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump
or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as
prima facie evidence that he is Putin's "Manchurian candidate."
Being Joe McCarthy
National Democrats and their media supporters don't even seem troubled by the parallels between
their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy's guilt-by-association
hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia no matter how tenuous or disconnected from
Trump's election is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.
But it's not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound
to the Democrats' political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative
foreign policy would bring in many "moderate" Republicans opposed to Trump's criticism of the Bush-Obama
wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party's nominee.
Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's
new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't
vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were
in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those
investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why
the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.
While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the
Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party's many mistakes and failings, such as:
Why did party leaders push so hard to run an unpopular establishment candidate in a strongly
anti-establishment year? Was it the fact that many are beholden to the Clinton cash machine?
How can Democrats justify the undemocratic use of "super-delegates" to make many rank-and-file
voters feel that the process is rigged in favor of the establishment's choice?
What can the Democratic Party do to reengage with many working-class voters, especially downwardly
mobile whites, to stop the defection of this former Democratic base to Trump's populism?
Do national Democrats understand how out of touch they are with the future as they insist that
the United States must remain the sole military superpower in a uni-polar world when the world is
rapidly shifting toward a multi-polar reality?
Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather
pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community
with its fearsome surveillance powers can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump's impeachment.
Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious
Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John
McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of "regime change" wars.
At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering
parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
print here or as an e-book (from
"... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
"... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the
Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley
tells Dennis J Bernstein.
Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how
Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting
the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around
hatred of Russia.
Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared
the current anti-Russia hysteria to "the
'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early
In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama
ordered a surveillance "tapp" of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained
by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who described how U.S. intelligence apparently
picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.
Dennis Bernstein: A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims
of being surveilled by the previous administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been
going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley. She's a former FBI special
agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the
FBI's pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help
us explain what chairman Nunes reported in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or
... ... ...
CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence
professionals, retired CIA, retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have
asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because it's just been assertions and innuendoes,
We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence
of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would
grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary
Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald
Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would
they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought
she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things,
to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's
just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.
FBI Director James Comey
And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates,
all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie
the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become
the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very
dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we
all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth
about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it.
DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped
using the wrong terminology, these
journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse
the former president of the United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and
information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and the idea of the possibility of Trump
Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally normal
in the context of an investigation.
CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of
the Trump campaign, certain staffers. And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite
rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put them under the microscope
they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever.
It's not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.
So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the
beginning, the Russians own Trump, and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral
process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And, Trump is partially vindicated, because
obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored,
at least in part.
DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation,
but not the Trump investigation?
CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he
was put into the spot because Loretta Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things.
But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac. And so my explanation
was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because
he thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI.
Because at the time Loretta Lynch was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why
he was so public at the time.
And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer,
again, it was not known. It was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act
of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But since this summer what has happened
is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc.
And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence.
And I think that that's the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has
been so much wrong information out there in the media. And no one knows what to believe.
Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not
accurate. And, I think that, again, we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I
do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to have come from political operatives,
and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees,
not Obama, of course, personally.
And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when
all is said and done will be seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous
sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading this. And maybe over time we can get back
to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And I, again,
I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually
using the media to plant false info.
Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy
to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare. Besides,
USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence,
there seemed to be no end in sight. As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)....
I still can't figure this Russiophobia out. We went from a path to mutual arms
reduction and normalizing relations to the shitstorm in Ukraine and Syria. I think
I know who started that whole mess, but I still haven't figured out why other than
maintaining friendly control of European petrochemicals.
We went from Bush II and Vlad fishing and hanging out at the ranch to where we are today. WTF happened?
Same here. This new obsession is complete and utter insanity.
The leftists in
the US remind me of the revolutionaries in Bolshevik Russia. They want a
revolution and dream of communal living.
Communal living is my worst nightmare! Anyone that has shared a house with
roomies soon understands that one person pays the bills while another eats all
the food and one person cleans the toilet while everyone else makes a mess of
the entire place. Communal living sounds great, in theory. In practice? It
Regarding Kirill's post about that shibboleth of contemporary
economics, free trade.
Pick up an introductory textbook of economics and your chances of
finding an objective assessment of a system of this kind are very
low indeed. Instead, what you'll find between the covers is a
ringing endorsement of free trade, usually in the most
propagandistic sort of language. Most likely it will rehash the
arguments originally made by British economist David Ricardo, in the
early 19th century, to prove that free trade inevitably encourages
every nation to develop whatever industries are best suited to its
circumstances, and so produces more prosperity for everybody. Those
arguments will usually be spiced up with whatever more recent
additions appeal to the theoretical tastes of the textbook's author
or authors, and will plop the whole discussion into a historical
narrative that insists that once upon a time, there were silly
people who didn't like free trade, but now we all know better.
What inevitably gets omitted from the textbook is any discussion,
based in actual historical examples, of the way that free trade
works out in practice That would be awkward, because in the real
world, throughout history, free trade pretty consistently hasn't
done what Ricardo's rhetoric and today's economics textbooks claim
it will do. Instead, it amplifies the advantages of wealthy nations
and the disadvantages of poorer ones, concentrating capital and
income in the hands of those who already have plenty of both while
squeezing out potential rivals and forcing down wages across the
board. This is why every nation in history that's ever developed a
significant industrial sector to its economy has done so by
rejecting the ideology of free trade, and building its industries
behind a protective wall of tariffs, trade barriers, and capital
controls, while those nations that have listened to the advice of
the tame economists of the British and American empires have one and
all remained mired in poverty and dependence as long as they did so.
There's a rich irony here, because not much more than a century
ago, a healthy skepticism toward the claims of free trade ideology
used to be standard in the United States. At that time, Britain
filled the role in the world system that the United States fills
today, complete with the global empire, the gargantuan military with
annual budget to match, and the endless drumbeat of brushfire wars
across what would one day be called the Third World, and British
economists were accordingly the world's loudest proponents of free
trade, while the United States filled the role of rising industrial
power that China fills today, complete with sky-high trade barriers
that protected its growing industries, not to mention a distinctly
cavalier attitude toward intellectual property laws.
One result of that latter detail is that pirate editions of the
Encyclopedia Britannica were produced and sold by a number of
American firms all through the 19th century. Most of these editions
differed from their British originals in an interesting way, though.
The entry for "Free Trade" in the original editions repeated
standard British free-trade economic theory, repeating Ricardo's
arguments and dismissing criticisms of free trade out of hand; the
American editors by and large took the trouble to replace these with
entries critiquing free trade ideology in much the same terms I've
used in this post. The replacement of pro- with anti-free trade
arguments in these pirate editions, interestingly enough, attracted
far more denunciation in the British press than the piracy itself
got, which shows that the real issues were tolerably well understood
at the time.
When it comes to free trade and its alternatives, that level of
understanding is nowhere near so common these days, at least in
Britain -I've long suspected that businessmen and officials in
Beijing have a very precise understanding of what free trade
actually means, though it would hardly be to their advantage just
now to talk about that with any degree of candor. In the West even
those who speak most enthusiastically about relocalization and the
end of corporate globalism apparently haven't noticed how
effectively tariffs, trade barriers, and capital controls foster
domestic industries and rebuild national economies-or perhaps it's
just that too many of them aren't willing to consider paying the
kind of prices for their iPods and Xboxes that would follow the
enactment of a reasonable tariff, much less the prices that would be
required if we had the kind of trade barriers that built the
American economy and could build it again, and bluecollar First
World workers were paid First World wages to make them.
Free trade is simply one of the mechanisms of empire in the age
of industrialism, one part of the wealth pump that concentrated the
wealth of the globe in Britain during the years of its imperial
dominion and does the same thing for the benefit of the United
States today. Choose any other mechanism of empire, from the web of
military treaties that lock allies and subject nations into a
condition of dependence on the imperial center, through the immense
benefits that accrue to whatever nation issues the currency in which
international trade is carried out, to the way that the charitable
organizations of the imperial center-missionary churches in
Victoria's time, for example, or humanitarian NGOs in ours-further
the agenda of empire with such weary predictability: in every case,
you'll find a haze of doubletalk surrounding a straightforward
exercise of imperial domination. It requires a keen eye to look past
the rhetoric and pay attention to the direction the benefits flow.
Follow the flow of wealth and you understand empire. That's true
in a general and a more specific sense, and both of these have their
uses. In the general sense, paying attention to shifts in wealth
between the imperial core and the nations subject to it is an
essential antidote to the popular sort of nonsense-popular among
tame intellectuals such as Thomas Friedman, at least, and their
audiences in the imperial core-that imagines empire as a sort of
social welfare program for conquered nations. Whether it's some old
pukka sahib talking about how the British Empire brought railroads
and good government to India, or his neoconservative equivalent
talking about how the United States ought to export the blessings of
democracy and the free market to the Middle East or the former
Soviet Union it's codswallop, and the easiest way to see that it's
codswallop is to notice that the price paid for whatever exports are
under discussion normally amounts to the systematic impoverishment
of the subject nation.
Free trade is only fair if all nations in the agreement start
from the same point. If you choose not to invest in development,
that's your own lookout, but don't complain if you end up under
the de facto control of the one who did. But when a
highly-developed nation espouses a free trade agreement with a
nation that is just starting, it should be fairly easy to
forecast who will come out ahead on the deal.
Did you uhhh write
that yourself? Because it's pretty awesome.
Especially when you
mention that these matters were much more clear to the general
public a century ago, than they are now.
This is what List wrote (National System):
It is a very common clever device that when anyone has
attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by
which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means
of climbing up after him. In this lies the secret of the
cosmopolitical doctrine of Adam Smith, and of the cosmopolitical
tendencies of his great contemporary William Pitt, and of all
his successors in the British Government administrations. Any
nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on
navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation
to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain
free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw
away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations
the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones
that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has
now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.
"... However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary Russophobia demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces does not have the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy skepticism if not ridicule by many Western citizens. ..."
"... What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially in the US. The political class the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media are frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump. ..."
"... Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that they have already made", said Peskov. ..."
"... There seems to be a collective delusional mindset. ..."
"... the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for demise by blaming it all on Russia. ..."
"... The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity, as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt. ..."
"... Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics ..."
"... The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia. ..."
"... When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was reported to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month, the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence. ..."
"... What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence". ..."
"... Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between the Trump campaign team and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the existence of any evidence. ..."
"... And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate media. ..."
"... Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake. That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case. But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument. ..."
"... This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics. ..."
There was a time when Russophobia served as an effective form of population control used by the
American ruling class in particular to command the general US population into patriotic loyalty.
Not any longer. Now, Russophobia is a sign of weakness, of desperate implosion among the US ruling
class from their own rotten, internal decay.
This propaganda technique worked adequately well during the Cold War decades when the former Soviet
Union could be easily demonized as "godless communism" and an "evil empire". Such stereotypes, no
matter how false, could be sustained largely because of the monopoly control of Western media by
governments and official regulators.
The Soviet Union passed away more than a quarter of a century ago, but Russophobia among the US
political class is more virulent than ever.
This week it was evident from Congressional
hearings in Washington into alleged Russian interference in US politics that large sections of
American government and establishment media are fixated by Russophobia and a belief that Russia is
a malign foreign adversary.
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems
to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications
which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary
Russophobia demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces does not have
the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news
media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example
allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy
skepticism if not ridicule by many Western citizens.
What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider
public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially
in the US. The political class the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media are
frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some
kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump.
But this frenzy of Russophobia is not reflected among the wider public of ordinary American citizens.
Rabid accusations that Russia hacked the computers of Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to spread
damaging information about her; that this alleged sabotage of American democracy was an "act of war";
that President Trump is guilty of "treason" by "colluding" with a "Russian influence campaign"
all of these sensational claims seem to be only a preoccupation of the privileged political class
. Most ordinary Americans, concerned about making a living in a crumbling society, either don't buy
the claims or view them as idle chatter.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged
Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have
become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that
they have already made", said Peskov.
Other suitable imagery is that the US political class are tilting at windmills, chasing their
own tails, or running from their own shadows. There seems to be a collective delusional mindset.
Unable to accept the reality that the governing structure of the US has lost legitimacy in the
eyes of the people, that the people rebelled by electing an outsider in the form of business mogul-turned-politician
Donald Trump, that the collapse of American traditional politics is due to the atrophy of its bankrupt
capitalist economy over several decades the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for
demise by blaming it all on Russia.
The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure
in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread
disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That
is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity,
as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt.
Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment
to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics.
The corrosive, self-destruction seems to know no bounds. James Comey, the head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
told Congress this week that the White House is being probed for illicit contacts with Russia.
This dramatic notice served by Comey was greeted with general approval by political opponents of
the Trump administration, as well as by news media outlets.
The New York Times said the FBI was in effect holding a "criminal investigation at the doorstep
of the White House".
Other news outlets are openly
airing discussions on the probability of President Trump being impeached from office.
The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration
is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of
suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia.
President Trump has run afoul with Republicans in Congress over his planned healthcare reforms
because many Republicans are taking issue instead over the vaunted Russian probe.
When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was
to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month,
the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence.
What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little
evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo
and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence".
Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this
week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between
the Trump campaign team and the Russian government.
Even former senior intelligence officials, James Clapper and Michael Morell who are no friends
of Trump, have lately admitted in media interviews that there is no such evidence.
Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal
investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the
existence of any evidence.
And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House
was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate
Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake.
That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case.
But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument.
That then means that the Washington seat of government and the US presidency are tearing themselves
apart in a futile civil war.
The real war here is a power struggle within the US in the context of ruling parties no longer
having legitimacy to govern.
This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but
a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics.
Expect some variation of this story below to come
from the upcomine revelations. Trump and Nunes want
to not only demonstrate that Obama was scum, but put
a major wedge between the DNC and Jews and Israel:
maybe you are right and the NSA are the good guys. Maybe
Snowden did what he did because the NSA itself is not
happy about what they are told to do. Snowden did not go
rogue but is following orders from within NSA.
It could also be that the NSA dropped vault 7 onto
WikiLeaks as well as the various Hillary leaks during the
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been
"incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates? ?Trump tower? ?Trump
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think
Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance" and I don't think
the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either
the nuances and subtleties of it the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you
give people an opportunity to use secret information for their own
purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the
"incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and that this leaking IMHO
was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore.
Like bringing up "fake news" some of these people on the anti Trump side seem
not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But
it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending more time monitoring
repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda I think its
time we have a real debate instead of the pseudo debates and start asking how
useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's
shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement, he could be in
trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many
more levels to what is going on than what is reported in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was
installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has
stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00
pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying
operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he
has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp
creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting
videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very
likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at
Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was
up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in
their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous
angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are
liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to
inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc,
you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2
videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry,
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated
here on all counts, the more important story for you is that the old line
Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and
This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order
broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington,
so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA
intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all
about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too
know what was going on in my own organization" card.
showing evidence that Trump Tower was specifically
monitored during the Obama administration, although the probe was
targeting Russian mafia and not Trump and was done well before he
declared his candidacy.
The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity,
but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it
has been reported.
Between 2011 and 2013 the Bureau had a warrant to spy on a
high-level criminal Russian money-laundering ring, which
operated in unit 63A of the iconic skyscraper - three floors
below Mr Trump's penthouse.
Not exactly a confirmation of Trump's rather wild claims, but
Still waiting for
evidence to appear that Russians
interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
Ok, so they were just after the Russian mafia, phew I feel
better already. So they got the felons and they are all
What utter BS! Why is Semion Mogilevitch still at large in
Hungary and no extradition process? What about Felix Sater and
Steve Wynn and on and on. Why are they incapable of prosecuting
mafia mobsters and instead chasing politicians?
That said, it was what
happening potentially to all
citizens, not just Donald
Trump. I dislike this
intensely, but why should
Trump get special
dispensation over other
citizens? Would like to know
the reason for that.
Like Watergate, it's really
about the denial or the lying.
"When did you know about
the, er, collecting?"
For how many days have we
ridiculed Trump for his
> He can join the other 310 million of us who can be "incidentally
Didn't your mother tell you that 310 million wrongs don't make a
Neither party establishment cares about that quaint concept, civil
liberties. If Obama's flip flip on FISA reform in July 2008, giving the
telcos retroactive immunity for Bush's warrantless surveillance, didn't
convince you, then his 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy should
Not to mention monitoring a politician opens up a whole new can of
worms. I'm convinced Trump must pretty clean relatively because the IC
hasn't gotten rid of him yet and you know they have all of his
I'm with Lambert on neither party caring. I knew all I needed to when
Obama voted for FISA and the following years just reinforced how
corrupt the Dems were. There is an import point here though. I don't
think Trump would have thought that all of the surveillance would be
applied to him personally. It was just about other people. It was
probably a legitimate eye opener. Now Trump is at the head of the
surveillance apparatus. Instead of asking wikileaks to release all of
clintons emails, he should just do it himself. The Dems who were all
for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about
Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the
extremest have penetrated into our government unless we trace where
terrorist influence goes.
Not just incedently, in concreshional hearings, Comie flat out says that
Trump and his team were investigated for Rushan connections, and that none
were found. The question now is was the investigations properly secured or
not. Something completly in the air.
But team dem is still playing the "wire tap" canad.
It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top
of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and
another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't
wearing a shirt either .)
Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far
outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications
intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital
networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington
Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted
conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in
full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were
caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.
And what was the reaction of many Congresspersons
(including many Dems, and all of the GOP except maybe Rand Paul and
Revealing this is treason.
People will die.
And Trump's CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, has called for Snowden's
Sorry allan I got all excited at seeing a Nunes article in
ZeroHedge and posted a comment your article is better and it makes
for more coherent comment threads to keep them together I should
have looked before I leaped (posted).
Nunes: "I recently confirmed that, on numerous occasions, the
Intelligence Community incidentally collected information about U.S.
citizens involved in the Trump transition.
Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming
administration-details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence
value-were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team
members were unmasked.
To be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or any
investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team."
So the worm turns. The hypocrisy espoused by all sides is ..well, 11th
fresno dan, this was a major topic of discussion during the
committee hearing with Comey and Rogers on Monday. I listened to
the whole thing all five hours and 18 minutes' worth because I
suspected that the corporate media would omit important details or
spin it beyond recognition. And so they did.
The bipartisan divide is being portrayed as Democrats wanting to
get to the truth of Russian efforts to snuff out Democracy, and
Republicans wanting to "plug leaks" (see Lambert's RCP except
above), with some reports suggesting the Rs are advocating stifling
free speech, prosecuting reporters for publishing classified
information, and the like.
Republican committee members were indeed focused on the leaks,
and there was talk about how to prevent them, but their concern
at least as they expressed publicly on Monday was specifically
related to whether all those current and former officials, senior
officials, etc., quoted anonymously in the NYT and WaPo (the
infamous "nine current and former officials, who were in senior
positions at multiple agencies") violated FISA provisions
protecting information about U.S. persons collected incidentally in
surveillance of foreign actors.
Sure, they're playing their own game, and it could be a ruse to
divert attention from the Trump campaign's alleged Russian ties or
simply to have ammo against the Ds. Even so, after listening to all
their arguments, I believe they are on more solid ground than all
the Dem hysteria about Russian aggression and Trump camp treason.
I don't think I'll ever get Trey Gowdy's cringe-worthy
performance during the Benghazi hearings out of my head, but he
made some pretty good points on Monday, one of which was that
investigating Russian interference and possible ties between Trump
advisers and Russia is all well and good, but there may or may not
have been any laws broken; whereas leaking classified information
about U.S. citizens collected incidentally under FISA is clearly a
felony with up to 10 years. Comey confirmed that by saying that ALL
information collected under FISA is classified.
And then he repeatedly refused to say whether he thought any
classified information had been leaked or existed at all (I counted
more than 100 "no comment" answers from Comey, who astonishingly
managed to find 50 different ways to say it).
My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but
the gross dereliction of duty if not outright abuse of First
Amendment powers by reporters who collaborate with intelligence
agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover to
say or write whatever they want with zero accountability.
In fact, there were some interesting comments in Monday's
hearing about the possibility that some of what has been reported
was fabricated. Then, you might expect Comey to say something like
that. For all his talk about not tolerating leaks from his agency,
blahblah, it was clear that he'll provide his own people with
cover, if necessary. I think that's what Gowdy and a couple other
Republicans were getting at.
It goes without saying, but I'll add that the Dems were hardly
even trying to disguise their real goal, which isn't protecting the
American People® from the evil Russkies, but taking down Trump.
Thanks for watching the whole thing the nation owes you a
debt of gratitude.
"My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information,
but the gross dereliction of duty if not outright abuse of
First Amendment powers by reporters who collaborate with
intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving
everyone cover to say or write whatever they want with zero
First, I a squillion percent agree with you. This is a big,
bit deal because essentially the military/IC/neocons is trying
to wrest control of the civilian government the idea that the
CIA is some noble institution that wants the best for all
Americans is preposterous, yet accepted by the media, which
proves how much propaganda we are fed. The sheep like following,
the mandatory use of the adjective "murderous thug" before the
name of "Putin" just shows that most of the media has been
bought off or has lost all their critical thinking faculties.
But I also don't want to be a hypocrite so I will explain
that I don't have too much of a problem with leaks. WHAT I do
have a problem with is the purposeful naivete or ignorance of
the media that the CIA and/or facets of the Obama administration
is trying to thwart rapprochement with Russia. Administrations
BEFORE they are sworn in talk to foreign governments the sheer
HYSTERIA, the CRIME of talking to a Russian is beyond absurd. We
are being indoctrinated to believe all Russia, all bad
There is a ton of information about Podesta and the Clintons
dealing with Russia for money. If Flynn and whatshisname are
just grifting that is pedestrian stuff and everybody in
Washington does it (I thing they call it "lobbying"). If there
is REAL treason something should have come out by now.
I began covering congressional hearings while I was still
in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as
a reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a
full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original
sources and am willing to take the time to dig for them or,
in this case, to sit through a hearing as though I were
covering it as a member of the press especially when I
don't even have to wash my hair or get dressed!
I didn't mean to imply that I have a problem with leaks. I
certainly encouraged enough of them in my time, and I don't
think there's anything inherently wrong with publishing
leaked material, even certain kinds of classified
information. It depends.
There's the kind of "classified" information that is
restricted expressly to keep the public from knowing
something they have a right to know, and there's information
that's classified to protect individual privacy. The first
kind should be leaked early and often. The second kind, close
to never (and off the top of my head I can't think of an
instance when it would be OK).
Even though journalists aren't (and shouldn't be) held
liable for publishing classified information given to them by
a third party, they need to be scrupulous in their decisions
to do so. Is it in the public interest? Who or what might be
harmed? Would sitting on the information cause more harm than
publicizing it? Does it violate someone's constitutional
These questions can get tricky with someone like Flynn,
who's clearly a public figure and thus mostly fair game.
However, if I had been reporting that story, I think I would
have sat on it until I had more information, even at the risk
of getting scooped unless, of course, I was in cahoots with
the leakers and out to get him and his boss.
At that point, I am no longer an objective journalist
committed to fair and accurate reporting, but a participant
in a political cause. Although newspapers throughout history
have taken sides, and pure "fact-based" journalism is a myth,
there's a big difference between having an editorial slant
and being an active participant in the story. Evidently,
BezPo has decided that the latter is not only acceptable, but
Sorry, didn't mean to ramble on when I'm likely preaching
to the converted. I feel very strongly about this issue, and
it's disconcerting to me, as a lifelong Democrat, that I
agreed more with the Republicans in that hearing. At the same
time, the D's propaganda machine is pumping out so much toxic
fog that it's shaking my faith in unfettered freedom of the
> I began covering congressional hearings while I was
still in j-school and sat though many like this during my
years as a reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked
as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer
original sources and am willing to take the time to dig
In fact, there were some interesting comments in Monday's
hearing about the possibility that some of what has been
reported was fabricated.
I mean, it's not like we don't have
players with the expertise and the institutional mandate to fake
evidence. Waiting for a shoe to drop on this. Call me foily .
* * *
My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information,
but the gross dereliction of duty if not outright abuse of
First Amendment powers by reporters who collaborate with
intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving
everyone cover to say or write whatever they want with zero
I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in
the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations
run against . well, everybody.
It doesn't, er, bug me that 70-year-old Beltway neophyte Trump used
sloppy language - "wiretap" - to describe this state of affairs. (I
don't expect any kind of language from Trump
are, therefore one is. It does bug me that the whole discussion gets
dragged off into legal technicalities about what legal regimen is
appropriate for which form of Fourth Amendment-destruction (emptywheel
does this a lot). The rules are insanely complicated, and it's fun to
figure them out, rather like taking the cover off the back of a Swiss
watch and examining all the moving parts. But the assumption is that
people follow the rules, and especially that high-level people (like,
say, Comey, or Clapper, or Morrel, or Obama) follow the complicated
rules. That assumes facts not in evidence.
Incidental collection was always a likely scenario.
We've also seen statements from people like GHCQ that clains they
surveilled Trump at Obama's behest were "absurd," but those are non-denial
denials. I can't recall a denial denial. Am I missing something?
As we detailed earlier, it appears Trump may have been right, again.
Two days after FBI director Comey shot down Trump's allegation that Trump was being wiretapped
by president Obama before the election, it appears that president Trump may have been on to something
because moments ago, the House Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes, told reporters that the U.S. intelligence
community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition team, possibly
including Trump himself, and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports.
, Nunes said that President Donald Trump's communications
may have been
during the transition period as part of an "incidental collection."
Nunes told a news conference Wednesday that the communications appear to be picked up through
"incidental collection" and do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation
into Trump associates' contacts with Russia.
He says he believes the intelligence
collections were done legally
, although in light of the dramatic change in the
plotline it may be prudent to reserve judgment on how "incidental" it was.
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected
information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
"Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little
or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community
The information was "legally brought to him by sources who thought we should know it,"
Nunes said, though he provided little detail on the source.
BREAKING!!! Rep Devin Nunes (Intel Cmte Chmn):
There was "Incidental collection" of
thru IC surveillance <- BOMBSHELL
Nunes also said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked
in the intelligence reports.
He indicated that Trump's communications may have been
The House Intel Chair said he had viewed
dozens of documents showing that the
information had been incidentally collected.
He said that he believes the information
was legally collected. Nunes said that
the intelligence has nothing to do
with Russia and that the collection occurred after the presidential election.
Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the revelation and will inform
the White House later today. Nunes' statement comes after he and other congressional
leaders pushed back on Trump's claims that former President Obama had his "wires tapped"
in Trump Tower ahead of the election.
Nunes said Wednesday that it was unclear whether the information incidentally
collected originated in Trump Tower.
The revelation comes in the wake of the committee's explosive hearing on Monday, at which
FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the bureau has been investigating Russia's election
hacking since July, which includes probing possible coordination between members of Trump's
presidential campaign and Moscow.
The meeting represented the panel's first open hearing on its investigation into Russia's
election meddling and also featured testimony from NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers.
Nunes says the communications of Trump associates were also picked up, but he did not
name those associates. He says the monitoring mostly occurred in November, December and
January. He added that he learned of the collection through "sources" but did not specify
Politico adds that Nunes is going to the White House later Wednesday to brief the Trump
administration on what he has learned, which he said came from "sources."
Nunes says he is "bothered" by this. Won't say whether or not
intel community spied on Trump et. al. But says he is "concerned."
Trump wouldn't of tweeted what he did unless he knew something. He
doesn't make blind bets, he only moves on things he knows he can win.
Not to mention he has shown that he can bait, watch the other side
respond and deny and then present his case to show them as the liars
How all these people still let
trump bait them like this is
hilarious. How many times has he
said something that seemed
baseless and everyone was sure
would sink him, and then he is
vindicated? And they still fucking
fall for it.
And yes, incidental
surveillance is a funny term. As
in you swept all his up the same
way they listen to all of us all
the time? Maybe this will piss
trump off enough to end this shit.
I doubt it though.
'wiretaps' EVERYONE. All of what you say on your
phone, on-line, and in any other form of electronic
communications is Hoovered up and dumped in their
mass storage facilities in Utah and elsewhere. The
system is set up to get it all AUTOMATICALLY. In
fact, they would have had to go to great efforts to
NOT record what Trump and his associates said
electronically. Or searched for. Or visited on the
web. Or even visited in person if he/she carried a
cell phone with when going about.
Because it is all recorded for ALL OF US!
Standard, all the time, no warrant required.
Of course, if there were FISA warrants issued,
then the opposition did more than that, because no
warrant is required for any of the above. So they
must have also done some non-standard dirty. Like
placing recording malware on the relevant cell
phones to record conversations, take pictures,
upload stored files, and even take video. Or sift
through his financial records.
OK, so why should you care? I don't mean about
Trump, although you should care there as well, but
about your privacy. You may not be getting the full
Monte he did, by everything you do in the first
paragraph now rests with the NSA.
For an answer, consider this conversation between
one of the uber-wealthy and a Federal Prosecutor:
"With enough data, my lawyers can always find a
crime. They'll prosecute. Bury anyone under legal
motions, make his life miserable. Maybe even send
him up for some felony."
"Even if he didn't do anything?"
"Of course he did something. We got 100,000 laws
on the books, twice that in regs. Somewhere,
sometime, by accident or intentionally, he broke
one. We get a moving x-ray of his life, all we have
to do is find it."
It's called the power of selective prosecution.
With enough data, what used to be just an annoyance
becomes an unstoppable control technique. Someday,
when the deep state wants you cooperation, they will
drill down through their Utah stash for your name.
Then they will call you in for a little chat.
Not willing to spy on your best friend or wife?
You may change you mind after their little chat.
So how to avoid this trap? How do you avoid
becoming a data serf?
Learn to hide your data so it can't be hovered in
the first place. I suggest you start with
and work your way up from
And do it now. Because protecting your privacy
is like quitting smoking. It doesn't matter how
long you have been engaged in unclean behavior, it's
never too late to start living right.
The quote above, by the way, was from Thieves
Emporium by Max Hernandez. It's a primer on the
ways TPTB control us in the new world of fiat money
and ubiquitous surveillance and what we can do to
prevent it. I strongly recommend you at least
investigate getting a copy.
There is a simple method for Trump to "drain the
swamp". Fucked if I know why he hasn't, given how much
butt-hurt they are dishing out to him.
Order giving immunity and witness protection (and even
a fucking Presidential Medal of Freedom, if you ask me)
to all whistleblowers who reveal unconstitutional
malfeasance within both overt and covert .gov
departments. Because these are the true patriots, and
all that is stopping them shining a fucking huge
spotlight on this bucket of scumfuck is persecution
from the swamp dwellers who control all the levers of
Maybe with a (secure) hotline/email direct to the
White House, just to bypass Comey and all the other
cunts installed by Obama. Or probably better, directly
to a morally rock solid independent Special Prosecutor
who is prepared to get down and seriously dirty with
the insidious morally bereft creatures infesting DC. A
Trey Gowdy-type of bloke. Because , as far as relying
on the FBI et al is concerned, Trump was fucked before
A typewriter can get it done. Hear
they're Hot sellers in Germany again.
What people don't understand is, that the Russian
PsyOp / False Narrative Script by the Deep State &
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath Hillary
Clinton Globalist was the game plan all long.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going
"all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of
Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin /
Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep
States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
Plausible Deniability is the name of the game. If
the Deep State could of pulled off the False
Narrative PsyOp of Russia influencing our Elections
the Deep State could & will hack into Russia's
National Elections next March. Call it pay back.
The Deep State's destabilization campaign in
Ukraine especially Crimea was part of the
ZioNeoConFascist Agenda to destabilize Russia during
their upcoming g elections.
Putin countered by expelling all Geroge Sorros
NGO's from Russia. However, rest assured those
destabilization cells are in place to ready to be
activated come Russia's next election cycle.
The future meeting between the Two Super Powers
will be Epic. The Diplomacy which will Prevail out
of those meetings will be a fresh breath of air to
And, final Death Blows to the Pure Evil Criminal
Deep State Elite Compartmentalized Hierarchy.
3) All accounts disassociated with you
personally - fake names, no phone numbers, do not
link to any personal accounts, make no comments,
do not message your contacts.
4) never use your own wifi.
5) never use your own bank account or credit
cards, use crypto currency to pay for VPN, etc.
This setup, as I understand it, would keep you
completely anon with the exception of cameras at
the store you purchase laptop at or cameras at
the cafe you are using wifi. You can now leak
without it being linked to you.
Not to say that this setup is immune from CIA.
In fact the idea is that you
the CIA is looking, its just important that they
do not know WHO they are looking at (identity).
compatriot Vlad told me when he was a kid,
every typewriter in USSR was cataloged with
samples of its output. By microscopic
analysis, they could tell which typewriter was
responsible for any typed document.
every computer printer made also has the
same kind of ID backdoor - it will print a
specific identifier (like a MAC address)
somewhere on the page - except for the old dot
matrix and early inkjet. Defeat that by
running it thru a low res copier a few round
"An Executive Order giving immunity and witness
protection (and even a fucking Presidential Medal of
Freedom, if you ask me) to all whistleblowers who
reveal unconstitutional malfeasance within both
overt and covert .gov departments. Because these are
the true patriots, and all that is stopping them
shining a fucking huge spotlight on this bucket of
scumfuck is persecution from the swamp dwellers who
control all the levers of power.
Maybe with a
(secure) hotline/email direct to the White House,
just to bypass Comey and all the other cunts
installed by Obama. Or probably better, directly to
a morally rock solid independent Special Prosecutor
who is prepared to get down and seriously dirty with
the insidious morally bereft creatures infesting DC.
A Trey Gowdy-type of bloke. Because , as far as
relying on the FBI et al is concerned, Trump was
fucked before he started."
...Clapper in 2014 played a leading role in firing Flynn from the
directorship of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn, a retired US army
lieutenant general, became one of the only national security officials of any
note to back Trump, and is expected to take a leading role in Trump's
administration, reportedly national security adviser.
... ... ...
In March 2013, months before Snowden provided the Guardian and the
Washington Post with voluminous NSA data documenting sweeping domestic and
international communications dragnets, Clapper had a public colloquy with
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee.
Wyden asked Clapper: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on
millions, or hundreds of millions, of Americans?"
Clapper replied, untruthfully: "No sir," rubbing his head. "Not
After Snowden revealed otherwise, Clapper offered a shifting series of
explanations for his publicly uttered falsehood. He first said it was the "
" answer he could provide in an unclassified hearing. Later he
which particular communications collection program Wyden was
asking about despite Wyden's staff alerting Clapper's before the hearing as to
the question and apologized to the committee.
Later still, his lawyer, Robert Litt, would deny that Clapper lied and
said the director simply
. Litt would also say that Clapper finds open intelligence-committee
hearings, a requirement of congressional oversight, as annoying as folding
Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican,
called on Clapper to resign
for lying to Congress. It was not the first such
call: GOP senator Lindsey Graham wanted Clapper's resignation in 2011 after
Clapper forecast that the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi would "
over his opposition.
But Obama stuck by his appointee, who struck a highly combative tone
over the Snowden disclosures, even implying that journalists publishing them
to Snowden, who has been charged under the Espionage Act. During the departure
ceremony for NSA director Keith Alexander in 2014, Clapper mocked "Eddie
Snowden" and his admirers.
A just-published profile in Wired magazine will serve as Clapper's
final explanation of the episode while in office.
"The popular narrative is that I lied, but I just didn't think of it.
Yes, I made a mistake, but I didn't lie. There's a big difference,"
Clapper told Wired
"I'm quite sure that will be the first line of my Washington Post
obituary. But that's life in the big city."
For years before their famous exchange, Wyden had written numerous
letters to Clapper seeking
of widespread surveillance, particularly those
programs with a domestic reach. He pointed to their history in reacting to
"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials
engaged in an deception spree regarding mass surveillance. Top officials,
officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American
people and even lied to them," Wyden said.
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [Politico]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians
were hacking tampering with meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration
of war I had lying around
European Congress of Ukrainians (Yaroslava Khortiani)
Armenia: Federation of Ukrainians of Armenia "Ukraine"
Belgium: Main Council of Ukrainian Public Organizations
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coordination council of Ukrainian associations
Czech Republic: Ukrainian Initiative in the Czech Republic
Croatia: Union of Rusyns and Ukrainians of the Republic of Croatia
Estonia: Congress of Ukrainians of Estonia
France: Representative Committee of the Ukrainian Community of France
Georgia: Coordination Council of Ukrainians of Georgia
Germany: Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
Greece: Association of the Ukrainian diaspora in Greece "Ukrainian-Greek Thought"
Hungary: Association of Ukrainian Culture in Hungary
Latvia: Ukrainian Cultural-Enlightening Association in Latvia "Dnieper"
Lithuania: Community of Ukrainians of Lithuania
Moldova: Society of Ukrainians of Transnistria
Poland: Association of Ukrainians in Poland (Piotr Tyma)
Portugal: Society of Ukrainians in Portugal
Romania: Union of Ukrainians of Romania
Russia: Association of Ukrainians of Russia
Slovakia: Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic
United Kingdom: Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (Zenko Lastowiecki)
Australia: Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (Stefan Romaniw)
Argentina: Ukrainian Central Representation in Argentina
Brazil: Ukrainian-Brazilian Central Representation
Canada: Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Paul Grod)
Kazakhstan: Ukrainians in Kazakhstan
United States: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (Andriy Futey)
United States: Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (Ihor Gawdiak) 
Uzbekistan: Ukrainian Cultural Center "Fatherland"
They also are attempting
to influence our Atlantic Council!
In September 2014, the New York Times reported that since 2008, the organization has received donations
from more than twenty-five governments outside of the United States, including $5 million from Norway.
Concerned that scholars from the organization could be covertly trying to push the agendas of foreign
governments, legislation was proposed in response to the Times report requiring full disclosure of witnesses
testifying before Congress. Other contributors to the organization include the Ukrainian World Congress,
and the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.
Plus, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the famous DNC security firm, Cloudstrike, is a senior fellow
our Atlantic Council!
"... Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected. ..."
"... You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas? Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various targets over the last several years. ..."
"... This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag. ..."
"... Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. ..."
"... The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc? ..."
"... But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. ..."
"... It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.. ..."
The rank and file of the IC are not involved in this. So let's not tar everyone with the same
brush, but Obama revised executive order 12333 so that communication intercepts incidentally collected
dont have to be masked and may be shared freely in the IC.
Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental
communication intercepts can be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental
communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the unmasked incidental communications
that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep
tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected.
You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware
of it? Correspond overseas? Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There
is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various targets over the last
What might your "synthetic" surveillance report look like?
There's way more going on here then first alleged. From Bloomberg, not my choice for news,
but There is another component to this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted.
rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens,
let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff
Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane
Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.
Normally intercepts of U.S. officials
and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively
disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state
the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity.
This is what police states do. In
the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities
of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence
reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in
2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State
for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations
with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.
Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern.
"There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration,"
he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears
to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security
clearances, it looks like a pattern."
The real story here is why are there
so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea
President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways,
correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized
immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of
achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.............
But no matter what Flynn
did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political
branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely.
It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing
by public officials.. ..... But the answer isn't to counter it with equally irregular acts of
sabotage - or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in
the surveillance state.....
"... " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson. ..."
"... I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves. ..."
"... He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish. ..."
"... In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics. ..."
"... "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. ..."
"... And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
"... Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence. ..."
"Intel chair Devin Nunes unsure if Trump associates were
By Mike Levine...Mar 23, 2017...5:24 PM ET
" The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin
Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President
Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on
the phone calls or other communications now being cited as
partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims
against the Obama administration, according to a
"He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested
from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows
for sure," a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday..."
I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here
symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership
got on themselves.
He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he
can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia
came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some
sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish.
In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached
from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic
witch hunt dynamics.
It became by-and-large out of control of Democratic
leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it.
But they can't call the dogs back.
It was a dirty but effective trick to avoid sacking
Democratic Party failed, corrupt neoliberal leadership
(Clinton wing of the party). It worked, but it come with a
As Glenn Greenwald noted.
"The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media
figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from
feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free
conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after
both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now
millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a
Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there
is no evidence.
And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as
inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and
Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the
expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now
trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal
that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis
in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led
circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael
Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context
is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA
surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the
pages of the New York Times but also became the first high
official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming,
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin
had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence
community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question
of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here,
there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said,
adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little
candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking
"Obama's "Russia Hacked The Election" is CODE for "Trump Stole The Election."
Any "provable" instance of Russian hacking might also be a false flag operation
to justify new round of sanctions. That make Obama to look especially bad as he
asked CA to investigate this case, while t might well be that CIA is the agency
that needs to be investigated. They now have a lot of friends n Baltic republics
and Ukrane to stage also false flag operation attributable to Russia, they wish.
Remeber Oswald and JFK assassination.
In keeping with the theme
of providing no proof to the
general public, the
officials declined to
describe the intelligence
involvement of a third-party
in passing on leaked
material to WikiLeaks,
saying they did not
want to reveal how the U.S.
government had obtained the
just trust them, please.
Good thing we can completely
trust the integrity of
17 Intelligence Agencies
because this explanation is
exactly what a corrupt and
politicized institution would
use to try to pass off a
completely fabricated story as
Looking at some of the 'information' from previous hacks
1. Sony - claimed to be North Korea
2. DNC/Clinton email - claimed to be Russia
3. Various - claimed to be China
4. Iranian centrifuges - no claims, but pretty good indication it was CIA/NSA/Israel
Now, who from that list didn't want HRC to be president. One could make a compelling case that #4, particularly Israel, would go this route and have the wherewithall/foresight to make it look like #2 - and Obama/Kerry allowing the UN vote to go through as punishment. Or, we can believe #2 was sloppy (or intentionally sloppy to send a message/rub our noses in it). Or, it was some 14 year old operating from their parents basement - nah, no 14 year old would think of covering their tracks to make it look like someone else.
thought crimes are where you find them, ask the catholic church.
seriously though, john mccain is an asset of the mossad. no other formation does it justice:
"We will obviously be talking about the hacking, but the main thing is the whole issue of cybersecurity," the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said ahead of the hearing. "Right now we have no policy, no strategy to counter cyberattacks."
check this shit out (my bold): Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War
By Jeff Gates, State Street Publications, 2008, paperback, 320 pp. List: $27.95; AET: $18
you really want to understand why this is going on, read.on; others be assured it is true.).
In his chapter on "John McCain and the Financial Frauds," Gates reviews McCain's unsavory role in the "Keating Five" scandal. The following chapter recounts the shameful role of McCain's father in helping to
cover up Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded
. "From a game theory perspective," Gates explains, "by covering up the murder of Americans aboard the USS Liberty, a U.S. president
(with the aid of Admiral John McCain, Jr.
) confirmed that Israeli extremists could murder Americans
endangering U.S. support."
Reviewed by Andrew I. Killgore
GUILT BY Association is an initially confusing masterpiece almost too stuffed with evidence to concentrate on making clear its basic theme. But author Jeff Gates did so in a recent letter to a distinguished retired American diplomat: "The research pivoted off the firsthand experience of "John Doe' whose experience spans 56 years of dealing with a
transnational criminal syndicate whose senior operatives share a common ideology in fundamental Judaism and a skill set experienced in displacing facts with beliefs.
Thus the common source of the fixed intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. And, thus the same network now being employed to expand this war to Iran."
From 1980 to 1987 Gates served as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, working with Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana,
son of the state's former Gov. Huey Long, who was assassinated at age 42 as he was preparing a presidential campaign. James Farley, postmaster general under President Franklin Roosevelt, had run a "penny postcard" poll confirming that if Huey Long actually ran for president, Roosevelt could not be re-elected.
Fifty years later Russell Long remained convinced that Roosevelt's people had killed his father.
At a 2002 speech Gates gave in London, he met "John Doe," related to one of the well-known people who had endorsed two of Gates' earlier books. Soon afterward, Doe assured him that if Gates undertook the research and analysis the results of which appear in Guilt, the evidence would identify who killed Huey Long, and why. The facts Gates assembled point not to Roosevelt's people but to the syndicate identified in Guilt.
The brilliantly provocative Guilt by Association consists of nine chapters: "Game Theory and the Mass Murder of 9/11"; "Organized Crime in Arizona"; "John McCain and Financial Frauds"; "McCain Family Secret: The Cover-Up"; "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime"; "Money, Democracy and the Great Divide"; "The New Anti-Semitism"; "Would Obama Be Better?"; and "The Way Forward."
In the first chapter Gates illustrates the intergenerational sophistication with which neoconservatives "prepared the minds" of the American public to invade Iraq in response to 9/11. Academics and think tanks pushed Samuel Huntington's 1996 Clash of Civilizations to promote a "clash consensus"-five years before 9/11. That same year Richard Perle along with other neocons such as Douglas Feith wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This helped lay more "mental threads" for removing Saddam Hussain. Then Senators McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton signed it.
Four days after the destruction of the World Trade Towers, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was urging President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Not only was there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was no real connection between Saddam's secular regime and the deeply religious al-Qaeda. At the same time, other Zionists from the U.S. Defense Department under Wolfowitz and, not so coincidentally, Feith were feeding false intelligence to the White House. The war would not be costly, according to Wolfowitz, and the entirely unnecessary and illegal war was launched.
In the chapter on "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime," Gates describes a John McCain who was either "ignorant about-or complicit in" Russian organized crime. During Boris Yeltsin's first term as president of Russia, a handful of "oligarchs' financially pillaged Russia. Six of the "Big Seven" oligarchs, whom Gates terms Ashkenazis, qualify for Israeli citizenship.
McCain described Mikhail Khodorovsky, the most infamous of Russia's corrupt oil oligarchs, as a "political prisoner." Notes Gates: "To claim Khodorovsky as a "political prisoner' requires a closer look at how, at 32 years of age, a single Russian-Ashkenazi citizen amassed state-owned assets worth more than $30 billion." Gates goes on to document the widespread criminality involved in Khodorovsky's billions.
"To solve this systemic criminality," Gates explains, "requires that a broad base of Americans understand how this "fields-within-fields' modus operandi operates unseen yet in plain sight, and how its operations progress working through people whose profiled needs become the means for influencing their behavior."
Guilt describes how Americans were induced to freely choose the very forces that endanger their freedom. Thus the role of those masterful at waging "war by deception" (the motto of the Israeli Mossad) by displacing facts with what the "mark" (i.e., the U.S.) could be deceived to believe: for example, that Iraq had nuclear weapons and mobile biological weapons laboratories and that the secular Saddam Hussain had ties with the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda.
Crafted as a wake-up call, the author documents how Tel Aviv wields control over U.S. foreign policy in an environment where lawmakers have been intimidated by the Israel lobby. "U.S. national security," Gates writes, "requires a rejection of the self-deception that Israel operates as a trustworthy ally in an unstable region while ignoring its multi-decade role in provoking and sustaining instability."
As Gates points out, the charge of anti-Semitism is used to misdirect and intimidate. As the criminality he documents becomes transparent, moderate Jews in fact are emerging as allies. The Zionist component-which Gates convincingly portrays as
ideology in the service of criminality
-has as its goal an extensive, Jews-only realm in an oil-rich region.
The facts confirm that Tel Aviv will never agree to peace with the Palestinians, as that would preclude their expansionist agenda for a Greater Israel. An oft-employed "entropy strategy" remains Israel's means to preclude settlement of the conflict. Indeed, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is revealed as only the latest in a long series of manipulations-each of which is designed to ensure a plausible evildoer. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Jews catalyze serial conflicts of opposites, while
this transnational criminal syndicate profits off the misery of both.
Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government
By Grant F. Smith, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), 2008, paperback, 340 pp. List: $14.95; AET: $11.
Reviewed by Delinda C. Hanley
The declassification on June 10, 2008 of long-secret Department of Justice (DOJ) documents is the springboard for Grant F. Smith's latest book revealing the inner workings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This ground-breaking study spotlights the Israel lobby's key architect, Isaiah L. Kenen, and uncovers how he and subsequent Israel-firsters morphed from being openly registered as foreign agents, who should have remained employees of the Israeli Embassy's Office of Information, into "American" domestic lobbyists for Israel, a far more benign, if dishonest, nomenclature.
Smith's very readable book reproduces and analyzes the highly deceptive Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings Kenen made while he was still an employee of the Israeli government in New York. It proceeds on to the American Zionist Council (ACZ), the precursor organization where AIPAC gestated. Referencing internal DOJ records, the book painstakingly documents previously undisclosed attempts by the Justice Department and dissenting Jewish groups, including the American Council for Judaism, to close down Kenen's Israeli-financed political propaganda operation-or to at least make it openly register and disclose its activities under FARA.
Thanks to Kenen's efforts, AIPAC's Zionist financial backers succeeded in laundering money, purchasing arms, smuggling stolen U.S. military hardware, and launching Israel's nuclear and military weapons industries. They paid for some of it with tax-exempt "charitable" donations, though a far larger percentage came from U.S. tax-dollars-without ever having to come out of the shadows.
Coming 20 years after Kenen's death, Smith's book is a powerful reminder to readers about the effectiveness of stealth public relations and the importance of framing stories for the mainstream media. (Kenen also launched the Near East Report, AIPAC's biweekly flagship publication, which is still a vital public relations tool for Israel.) This close examination of AIPAC's birth and struggle for power is a valuable lesson about nascent foreign interest lobbies, prosecutorial discretion, and the subversion of the rule of law by political elites.
America's Defense Line reads like a fascinating spy thriller or "who done it" that is hard to put down-until, that is, one remembers that AIPAC and its supporters are still at it-and, usually, getting away with it. (Stay tuned for the espionage trial of former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.)
Readers of Smith's book, perhaps alongside Jeff Gates' Guilt By Association, will have all the history and information necessary to loosen AIPAC's grip upon our nation once and for all-but only if we all insist that the rule of law once again become the law of the land.
Delinda C. Hanley is news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
You're correct, but Assange did offer $20,000 for information on Rich's murder. One could infer this was Assange's way of telling us his murder is related to the leaked emails without technically divulging his source.
Your question is absolutely valid! Assange said that the first batch of documents he published were given to him by a 'democratic staffer from the DNC'. After Seth was murdered - he offered the monies to find the murderer. I should have stated it that way in my comment. Be as it may Assange connected the dots for me when using the verbiage 'democratic staffer - DNC - Seth Rich - murdered. My bad!
You don't have to wonder since Craig Murray has said the source was domestic. That is the absurdity of this entire affair--we have the intermediary on record, a career diplomat, and no one has publicly questioned him. This whole thing is akin to the cops catching a white guy leaving a house with stolen goods, then they go into the house to investigate and find a dead body and there is another guy standing there with a smoking gun and then they decide not only to ignore the murder, they put out a warrant for a black guy who was nowhere near the crime, letting the original burgler off the hook too. That's how idiotic and off the trail of the important crimes these guys are. I mean why the hell are we not talking about the legit classified docs that Hillary allowed to be pilfered by multiple foreign (and probably domestic) sources anymore? Seems to me that is the actual crime.
> How about we send Congressional children and cia children first into battle against the Russians if they feel so strongly about it. <
Well, "someone's children" are already being sent to what could easily be the "Front Line" in a land battle against Mother Russia, and you can safely bet that none of these cannon-fodder will have families "with connections". THEIR children are all assured comfortable office jobs in the Pentagon, or similar.
California just hired Eric "Too Big To Jail" Holder as its point man against Trump deporting the illegals. I am dumbfounded. He is obviously such a whore and incompetent/unethical attorney. I figured he would be smart and stay on the gold course. Shows you how stupid and blindly partisan Californians are.
Add Holder to the list of those who have lied so much that nobody believes jack shit from them. Dems don't get it. The Clintonistas have gone back to the well about one thousand times too many. They are sooooo old and worn. Incapable of flexing with the wind and forming new ideas.
Nancy Pelosi is starting to look her age all of the sudden. Put on about ten pounds. And wrinkles and saggy jowels.
BTW: We don't need new ideas, just the Constitution.
Where's the collusion?
Even former DNI Director Clapper said there is no evidence.
explains: "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures
and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly
unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did
after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions
of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which,
at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day,
which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven
and Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that
have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them
have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no
basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President
Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly
notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates.
In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but
also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty,
claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited
Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Democrats will do just about anything to avoid sacking their failed, corrupt,
said in reply to JohnH...
House also tweeted that former intelligence director James Clapper was
"right" to say there was "no evidence of collusion between Russia and
Trump Campaign." But Clapper said he had no such information "at the
time," meaning before he left office in January.
The White House, in a tweet, and Spicer, in his daily press briefing,
attempted to dismiss the possibility of collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russian officials by citing comments made by intelligence
leaders in the Obama administration, as well as by Democratic and Republican
leaders who have been briefed on the investigation to date.
But the White House misrepresented the comments of those officials.
As the attached video shows, the White House tweet left out an important
qualifier. Comey said Clapper was "right" to say that there was no evidence
of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign contained in the
declassified report released Jan. 6 on Russian activities during the
2016 presidential election.
Clapper made his remarks about the report in a "Meet the Press" interview
on March 5, when he was asked whether there were "improper contacts
between the Trump campaign and Russian officials."
"We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,'
that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence,
that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members
of the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper said. "There was no
evidence of that included in our report."
Clapper went on to say "at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion."
But he added, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time
since I left the government."
Clapper also said, "I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest,
in the current president's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in
the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom
of all this."
"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked, "You admit your report that
you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?"
"It did - well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent
of the evidence we had at the time," Clapper said. "Whether there is
more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations
will be revelatory, I don't know."
Asked what the Senate intelligence committee could learn through
an investigation that Clapper's agency could not, Clapper replied, "Well,
I think they can look at this from a broader context than we could."
So Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was
no evidence of collusion "at the time" he left office in January. And
he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted
to clear the air.
Key Dem points to evidence of collusion between Russia, Team Trump
03/23/17 08:00AM - Updated 03/23/17 01:37PM
By Steve Benen
. . .
But on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, the California Democrat again talked
to Chuck Todd, and this time he took another step forward when describing
the nature of the evidence.
TODD: But you admit, all you have right now is a circumstantial case?
SCHIFF: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than
that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial
evidence now. So, again, I think -
TODD: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?
SCHIFF: I don't to want go into specifics, but I will say that there
is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation.
So, that is what we ought to do.
When we contacted the congressman's office, asking if Schiff may
have misspoken, and giving him a chance to walk this back, his office
said Schiff meant what he said. . . .
There's some fire along with all the smoke being generated.
US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have
coordinated with Russians
By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Jim
US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with
Washington (CNN) - The FBI has information that indicates
associates of President Donald Trump communicated with
suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the
release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's
campaign, US officials told CNN.
This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring
to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before
Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's
ties to Russia, according to one source.
The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes
human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and
accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S.
officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI
counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may
have taken place, though officials cautioned that the
information was not conclusive and that the investigation is
In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began
looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign
associates and suspected Russian operatives because the
bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or
reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an
agent of a foreign power."
The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to
White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday
after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest
any collusion took place.
"Investigating it and having proof of it are two different
things," Spicer said.
One law enforcement official said the information in hand
suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact
and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release
information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who
spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from
the information gathered so far since it's largely
The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but
the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of
the investigation, the officials said.
The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump
campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger
Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to
US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and
CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the
information the FBI is reviewing.
One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in
finding conclusive intelligence is that communications
between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent
months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the
Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed
their methods of communications, making monitoring more
difficult, the officials said.
Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began
orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach
of the Democratic National Committee and associated
organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton
campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Russian operation was also in part focused on the
publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at
undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators
say they are less focused on the coordination and publication
of those "fake news" stories, in part because those
publications are generally protected free speech.
The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed
an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger
case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously
lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most
highly classified programs, such as those focused on
intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for
investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing
Investigators continue to analyze the material and
information from multiple sources for any possible
indications of coordination, according to US officials.
Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what
specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing
US officials said the information was not drawn from the
leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former
British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political
opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination
between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.
doubt in my mind that Trump's team did in fact collude with
the Russians, and that the investigation will ultimately come
to the same conclusion. That's when the fun begins, if
impeachment proceedings can be called fun. Trump will deny,
deny, deny that he had any knowledge of the collusion; the
fact that he's a serial liar won't prevent most Republicans
from voting against his impeachment. Only Trump can save us
by doing a Nixon and resigning. He won't though, and we'll be
right back where we are, with one huge exception: we'll have
a proven traitor sitting in the White House, kept there by a
Agreed. If in fact the FBI can prove substantial ties between
the Russians and the Trump team co-ordinating the Wikileak
email dump, that has to qualify as "high crimes and
And given that, at this point, President
Cheeto is so unpopular, plus the FBI's evidence (yet to be
proven), they would almost have to vote for impeachment or
risk losing re-election in their home districts.
Go make some popcorn, grab your favorite beverage, sit
back and enjoy the sound of them imploding.
Like Whitewater, this investigation will take years and may
well come up empty.
Meanwhile, Democrats can obsess about
how unfair the election was, deny any notion that Hillary was
a lousy candidate, and refuse to figure out how to talk to
working people or come up with any kind of coherent economic
Trump-Putin shows that they are willing to do most any
distraction to keep from having to keep their eye on the
As a result, Democrats will mostly likely circle the
wagons to foist another mealy mouthed neoliberal on the
electorate in 2020 in the tradition of Gore, Kerry, and
Hillary, a candidate who will almost certainly assure Trump a
Despite a string of congressional losses, the sclerotic,
corrupt leadership refuses get rid of their losing
leadership. It would appear that Democrats have grown to love
playing Washington Generals to Republicans' Harlem
The current requirement for a duopoly assures that there
is always a place for losers.
Mark my words: "The Trump-Putin investigation [will take]
years because [investigators can't] find any wrongdoing from
[Trump-Putin] and so then continued looking into
[Trump-Putin] whenever they could, simply to keep the witch
If they had any evidence beyond innuendo and
hearsay, we would have seen some of it by now.
Trump-Putin has become an elaborate distraction to keep
Democrats from looking honestly at their failure, and to keep
the American public entertained as Trump guts the remnants of
their safety net.
And the plot thickens. Whoever said may you live in interesting times......had
no idea. Can you feel the desperation from the filthy corrupt democrats? The
demonic spirits that reside in them are going berserk. The light is starting to
shine on them and their evil deeds are more transparent than ever. It's only
gonna get better
10:05 a.m. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but the effort to describe the Russia
network as diabolical propaganda without mentioning Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio
Free Europe continues to amaze. Apparently Russia is the only country that funds a media network
intended to influence foreign audiences.
Nunes in his opening statement characterizes RT as a disinformation effort that "traffics in anti-American
conspiracies," rivaling Soviet propaganda. Here it is hard not to think of the joint intel report
that cited the network's reporting on Occupy Wall Street, "corporate greed" and fracking as evidence
of its anti-American nature. It also decried the network's use of the term "surveillance state" to
describe the U.S., which will be pretty ironic considering the content of today's hearing.
Again, it's a small point, but by these standards pretty much any alternative media outlet is "anti-American,"
and it's alarming to hear Democrats later ape this language in reference to RT.
10:20 a.m. Schiff delivers a long speech that essentially lays out the Trump-Russia conspiracy. Twitter
seems to be unanimous that it's a powerful piece of rhetoric.
Among other things, he unblinkingly cites the Christopher Steele's "golden showers" dossier as
a source. This seems like a pretty intense political calculation given that Michael Morell, who would
have been Hillary Clinton's CIA director, basically called the dossier useless just last week. The
dossier "doesn't take you anywhere, I think," Morell said. But it's all over this hearing, with multiple
Democratic members citing it. What that means, who knows, but it's interesting to see that level
of commitment from the Democrats.
10:32 a.m. Comey creates the big headline of the day by saying, "I have been authorized ... to
confirm that the FBI is investigating" the Russia story.
This both is and isn't big news. Although it's the first time it's been stated publicly, the existence
of this investigation has been common knowledge for a long time. Most of the leaked reports on the
topic have included this information.
For instance, The New York Times story from February 14th, about Trump officials having had "contact"
with Russian intelligence, spoke definitively of an investigation into possible collusion between
the Trump campaign and the Putin government.
Still, that doesn't mean Comey had to do what he did today. Is this payback to Trump for accusing
the FBI of illegally wiretapping him? Is it a good-faith effort to square the ledger in terms of
his previous highly controversial decision to out the Clinton email investigation? It's curious and
bold either way. One wonders if Trump might fire him.
The true newsworthy detail, of course, isn't that Comey disclosed the existence of an FBI investigation
into Trump as Democrats should know better than anyone, that doesn't necessarily mean anything
but that Comey is doing this now and didn't do so earlier, before the election. Obviously, he made
a different choice with regard to the Clinton email story, and the Democrats rightfully should be
furious about that.
10:36 a.m. Nunes asks Rogers if Russians hacked vote tallies in Michigan. Rogers answers no, noting
that the NSA doesn't do domestic surveillance. Nunes goes on to ask about Pennsylvania, Ohio and
Wisconsin, knowing Rogers won't answer. It's a totally meaningless exchange, but instantly becomes
This is what these hearings are for, primarily. Except for very rare occasions when mega-careful
witnesses like Comey and Rogers decide to give up tidbits, for the most part these hearings are held
so that House members can ping-pong talking points off witnesses, and then circulate clips of themselves
asking questions to which they already know the answers.
10:39 a.m. Florida Republican Tom Rooney asks Rogers about incidental collection of data about
"U.S. persons" under the Section 702 program. Admiral Rogers' explanation for how they use that data,
and how they protect the rights of U.S. companies and citizens redacting or "masking" identities,
for instance is almost comically non-reassuring.
Reading between the lines, the NSA seems to have basically unrestricted ability to snoop on foreigners.
When their targets are speaking to American persons or communicating with American companies, the
agency also seems to have an absurdly permissive mandate to listen to whatever they want to listen
to. Only later, it seems, do they figure out how to justify it legally.
This is an example of how the hyper-partisan nature of these hearings spoils American politics.
Liberals especially should be seriously concerned about such surveillance overreach by the intelligence
agencies, and also about leaks directed against individuals by intelligence officials. Similarly,
conservatives should be mortified by the possibility of foreign interference in our electoral process.
But because both of these issues are tied in highly specific ways to the political fortunes of
Donald Trump, each issue will be ignored by one side and thundered over by the other.
11:03 a.m. Schiff asks both men if Obama wiretapped Trump as Trump claimed. "I have no information
that supports those tweets," Comey says. Asked if he engages in McCarthyism, Comey says he tries
"not to engage in any isms of any kind, including McCarthyism." He gets laughs. Comey is a very,
very slick witness, difficult to read.
An interesting development in this hearing is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are
treating these witnesses as hostile. And both Comey and Rogers are in their own ways giving both
Nunes and Schiff what they want so far. They're allowing members of both parties to make speeches
and ask their suggestive questions, while giving them next to nothing.
11:19 a.m. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, last seen spending two expensive years stepping
on his weenie in a pathetic effort to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton through the
Benghazi probe, comes on to the delight of, well, nobody. Gowdy is the first to cross
over into open unfriendliness. Ominously, he starts trying to get Comey to say reporters
could be held criminally liable for disclosing secret information.
Gowdy later scores
a point by getting Comey to explain a hypothetical: how he would go about investigating
the leak of a U.S. citizen's name that appears in a newspaper. (He's clearly talking
Comey, with the caveat that he's not talking about anyone specific, lays out how he
would do that, talking about identifying the "universe" of people with access to that
information and then using investigative techniques to further narrow the field.
Indirectly, Comey confirms Gowdy's interpretation of a "felonious" disclosure to a
newspaper that must be prosecuted. It sets up a demand that Comey investigate and
prosecute that leak.
Gowdy does in fact go on to make such a demand. But Comey cockblocks Gowdy and says
he "can't" promise that he will investigate the leaks.
Gowdy looks like someone just stole his box of Mike and Ikes. He seems surprised,
like he didn't expect Comey's answer. Comey smiles and glares at Gowdy like the
third-rater he is.
11:43 a.m. Jim Himes asks Comey if Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Comey
says yes. Glad we cleared that up.
11:52 a.m. Mike Conaway of Texas points out that determining the source of a hacking
campaign is a forensic enterprise, but asks how they determine intent. In the process,
he pins down Rogers as saying he had a "lower level" of confidence in the idea that the
Russians preferred Trump to Clinton.
Conaway then plunges into a bizarre metaphor about how his wife went to Texas Tech,
so he roots for the Red Raiders and dislikes the Longhorns, or something. Conaway seemed
to want to ask if it is possible to root against Texas without liking the Red Raiders,
or the opposite, but pretty much everyone watching instantly loses track of whether
Hillary Clinton is Texas or Texas Tech in the metaphor.
Comey confidently goes with it. "Wherever the Red Raiders are playing, you want them
to win and their opposition to lose," he says. He goes on to elaborate on the metaphor,
talking about how the Russians later in the year knew the Red Raiders were going to
lose, "so you hope key people on the other team get hurt so they are not as tough an
opponent down the road."
The substantively interesting thing here is Comey's sly disclosure that the Russians
late in the game expected Trump to lose the election. But his deft handling of Conaway's
bumbling hypothetical overshadows the answer.
12:21 p.m. Nunes tries on a new rhetorical line: It's absurd to say Russians prefer
Republicans, because Reagan!
This is silly, of course, because Trump is a different animal from Reagan, but then
Comey and Rogers do something equally silly. On the question of whether the Russians
preferred Romney or McCain over Obama, they both look at each other like it's crazy to
suggest they ever considered the question. Isn't it their job to know things like that?
They're clearly dissembling.
"Is there any way you can comment on whether or not Mr. McCabe told that to Mr.
Priebus?" King asks.
Comey gives a classically Comeyish answer:
"I can't, Mr. King, but I can agree with your general premise. Leaks have always been
a problem. I read over the weekend [about] George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
complaining about them. But I do agree in the last six weeks and months there apparently
have been a lot of instances of conversations appearing in the media, and a lot of it is
dead wrong. Which is one of the challenges, because we don't correct it. It's made it
difficult because people are talking, or at least reporters are saying people are
talking, in ways that have struck me as being unusually active."
Translation: blow me, I'm not telling you what McCabe said to Priebus. King basically
thanks them both and retreats. King will spend much of the day apologizing for asking
perfectly legitimate questions.
Although the hearing has generated tons of headlines before it hits the halfway mark,
it's really a giant tease.
Both Comey and Rogers indicated from the start that they will reserve their more
candid testimony for a later classified hearing with these same members. For the public,
this means one thing: we'll continue to get no real answers, and a heavily partisan and
politicized version of events, no matter what happens. So long as the investigations
aren't closed, and the real information is kept behind closed doors, both parties can
pursue their rhetorical campaigns unchecked. And the testimony of people like Comey and
Rogers will be useful only for driving interest in the reading of tea leaves.
There should probably be three entirely separate investigations. One should concern
the question of whether, or to what extent, the Russians interfered with the election.
That's a non-partisan question, really, one everyone should care about, but Republicans
won't do anything about it because they will perceive the entire issue as a partisan
attack on Trump.
A second inquiry could deal with the question of illegal/politicized leaks of secret
surveillance data coming from the "IC." Again, in reality this is a non-partisan
concern. Were congressional Democrats really interested in getting at whatever the
intelligence community has on Trump, a bipartisan inquiry of this nature would be an
excellent pressure point.
Lastly, you could have a completely separate set of hearings into the question of
whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in anything untoward in its dealings with
Russians last year. If there's anything to this, the public needs to hear it, and it all
needs to be public.
But don't expect answers anytime soon. Hearings like today's only add to the
frustrating strangeness of this scandal, and it looks like this will continue for quite
The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President
Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine,
reports Gilbert Doctorow.
Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial
support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a
fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding
U.S. policy toward Russia.
For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal
interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested
victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars
somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable
While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced
since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup
in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea
to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.
But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard and that the opinion centers
of Washington and New York have allowed is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression."
Those who try to express dissenting opinions noting, for instance,
the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well
as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government have been essentially banned from both
the U.S. mass media and professional journals.
When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the
other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and
ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.
An Encouraging Sign
That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal
of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment)
of publishing Robert English's
article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new Détente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink
and does so with careful scholarship.
A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)
In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors
for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or
new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together
the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency
and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.
The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed
professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the
facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on
allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under
attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."
The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats
have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored
Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military
alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The
wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently
English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why
and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin
brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.
English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify
election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing
on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when
the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."
English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by
the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong
when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection,
governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings
English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of
Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate)
Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S.
policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards
Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.
Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western
democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's
own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions
for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries
English concludes his essay with a call to give détente with Putin and Russia a chance.
Who Is Robert English?
English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California
web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration
and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor
with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.
Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by
He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 19821986 at the Department
of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience
as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.
Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election
campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie
Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation,
which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy
Realist of 2016."
English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary
utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this
article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.
By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's
inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic
who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.
While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive
in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire.
The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing
their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a
politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines
that might be deployed against him or her.
Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking
for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources
who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true
The Politics of Geopolitics
Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another
to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream
Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let
him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20
Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor
Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September
2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian
annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.
It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied
like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs
readers about one-third of the commenters who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments.
But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of
the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.
Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found
themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers,
which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors
In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of
the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up
article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia,
a direct response to Putin's
speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War
and other policies.
Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their
bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald
Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.
Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many
years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did
not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.
Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill
with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality
is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.
The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the
libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's
entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working
for Vladimir Putin."
Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun
cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations
into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.
In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has
dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to
the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia
That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign
that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained
that eventually the truth will prevail.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have
a Future? was published in August 2015.
Rachel Maddow looks at the role of Russian bot networks and cyber war tactics during the 2016 U.S.
election and notes that those things didn't just go away after the election. She proves to be
a talented anti-Russian warmonger. Very impressive piece of propaganda. Classic brainwashing.
MSNC clearly is in neo-McCarthyism camp and try to capitalize on anti-Russian hysteria. Of
cause, Rachel Maddow was and still is a Hillary puppet, so she should have her credibility already destroyed.
but people still watching her show and that's a problem. Previously she supported this neocon warmonger,
now she became one. The problem with her blabbing is that accounting to FBI Russians have written
off Trump in Summer 2016.
Looks like Democratic party brass can no longer control the anti-Russian hysteria why wiped
up, even if they realized that they went too far and the ability to lick thier wound by launching anti-Russian
hysteria and getting it to the sky level pitch has some adverse effects in a long run ...
"... This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign. ..."
"... A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase. ..."
"... It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us. ..."
This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She
has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign.
All her blows were below the belt.
This selective reporting of pieces of information is actually pretty disingenuous. Anybody
using those methods and by selective reporting of bits of information that support your viewpoint
can be painted as a Russian agent. Even EMichael :-)
The problem with her blabbing is that according to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer
Listening to this show by MSNBC is so disguising, that I lost any respect for it.
Fool Me Once ... - Crowdstrike Claimed Two Cases
Of "Russian Hacking" - One Has Been Proven Wrong
The cyber-security company Crowdstrike claimed that the "Russia" hacked the Democratic National
Committee. It also claimed that "Russia" hacked artillery units of the Ukrainian army. The second
claim has now be found to be completely baseless. That same is probably the case with its claims
related to the DNC.
The DNC was likely not hacked at all. Some insider with access to its servers may have taken
the emails to publish them. On July 10 2016 the DNC IT administrator Sean Rich was found fatally
shot on the streets of Washington DC. To this day no culprit has been found. The crime is unsolved.
Five Congressional staffers and IT administrators from Pakistan, some of whom also worked for
the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access
to Congressional computers. They had the password of Wasserman-Schultz and may have had access
to the DNC servers.
Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" have evidently been false with regards to the Ukrainian
artillery. Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" in the case of the DNC have never been supported
or confirmed by independent evidence. There are reasons to believe that the loss of control of
the DNC's email archives were a case of unauthorized internal access and not a "hack" at all.
A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and
other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded.
These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian
enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase.
It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us.
"Devin Nunes is a conservative Republican from the San Joaquin Valley who
advised Donald Trump through his transition to the presidency. Adam Schiff is
a Los Angeles Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton and isn't shy in his
criticisms of the man who defeated her" [
Now the two California congressmen find themselves at the center of the political
universe, leading a House probe into Russian meddling in American politics .
The two have no qualms about expressing disagreements with what they deduce
from the same pot of information, but their joint appearances are a vestige
of the kind of bipartisanship that has all but disappeared from Washington.
And yet, Monday's hearing showed the partisan divide on the issue, with Republican
members focused on plugging government leaks of sensitive information and Democrats
interested in possible collusion." "Meddling," "collusion." Pretty squishy words
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [
(Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were
seeking to influence
Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
"From Russia, with Panic" [Yasha Levine,
(DG)]. This is an important post. Key point: "But in private
conversations, as well as little-noticed public discussions, security professionals
take a dimmer view of the cybersecurity complex. And the more I've looked at
the hysteria surrounding Russia's supposed hacking of our elections, the more
I've come to see it as a case study of everything wrong and dangerous about
the cyber-attribution business." For example: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ analyst
and founder of Capital Alpha Security who blogs under the influential Twitter
handle @pwnallthethings, found a Word document pilfered from the DNC and leaked
by Guccifer 2.0. As he examined its data signatures, he discovered that it had
been edited by Felix Edmundovich-a.k.a. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka.
To him, it was proof that Guccifer 2.0 was part of the same Russian intelligence
operation. He really believed that the super sophisticated spy group trying
to hide its Russian ties would register its Microsoft Word processor in the
name of the leader of the infamously brutal Soviet security service."
"Could the President Spy on His Political Opponents?" [
]. "But regardless of whether [Trump's "wiretapping"]
claims turn out to be completely false, which is all but certain now, they do
raise a question that shouldn't be casually dismissed: Could President Obama's
administration have surveiled his political opponents under its interpretation
of the law? Could President Trump's administration now do the same? The answer,
unfortunately, is yes."
"Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics
for Putin's Benefit" [
I used Slate because "2005" somehow didn't get into the headlines in the other
a blow-by-blow from NPR
I can well believe that the Democrats are so feckless that they ginned up
a Trump scandal with
the wrong foreign power
Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US
president in history. It's not only the fact that his administration has been literally taken over
by Goldman Sachs, the top vampire-bank of the Wall Street mafia.
Recently, Trump announced another big alliance with the vulture billionaire, Paul Singer, who,
initially, was supposedly against him. It looks like the Trump big show continues.
The 'anti-establishment Trump' joke has already collapsed and the US middle class is about be
eliminated by the syndicate of the united billionaires under Trump administration.
As Greg Palast told to Thom Hartmann:
Paul Singer whose nickname is "the vulture", he didn't get that nickname because he is a sweet
an honest businessman. This is the guy who closed the Delphi auto plants in Ohio and sent them to
China and also to Monterrey-Mexico. Donald Trump as a candidate, excoriated the billionaires who
sent Delphi auto parts company down to Mexico.
Paul Singer has two concerns: one of them is that we eliminate the banking regulations known as
DoddFrank. He is called 'the vulture' cause he eats companies that died. He has invested heavily
in banks that died. He makes his billions from government bail-outs, he has never made a product
in his life, it's all money and billions made from your money, out of the US treasury.
He is against what Obama created, which is a system under DoddFrank, called 'living wheels',
where if a bank starts going bankrupt, they don't call the US treasury for bail-out. These banks
go out of business and they are broken up so we don't have to pay for the bail-out. Singer wants
to restore the system of bailouts because that's where he makes his money.
The Mercers are the real big money behind Donald Trump. When Trump was in trouble in the general
election he was out of money and he was out of ideas and he was losing. It was the Mercers, Robert,
who is the principal at the Renaissance Technologies, basically investment banking sharks, that's
all they are. They are market gamblers and banking sharks, and that's how he made his billions, he
hasn't created a single job as Donald Trump himself like to mention.
Both the vulture and the Mercers, they don't pay the same taxes as the rest. They don't pay regular
income taxes. They have a special billionaires loophole called 'carried interest'. They were two
candidates who said that they would close that loophole: one was Bernie Sanders and the other, believe
it or not, was Donald Trump, it was part of his populist movie, he said ' These Wall Street sharks,
they don't build anything, they don't create a single job, when they lose we pay, when they win,
they get a tax-break called carried interest. I will close that loophole. ' Has he said a word
about that loophole? It passed away.
His political activities include funding the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and he has
written against raising taxes for the 1% and aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act. Singer is active in Republican
Party politics and collectively, Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are "the top
source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of his role at
EMC, which has been called a vulture fund. Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in
the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid
debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in
or near default-such as Argentina, ]- through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through
Kensington International Inc. Singer's business model of purchasing distressed debt from companies
and sovereign states and pursuing full payment through the courts has led to criticism, while Singer
and EMC defend their model as "a fight against charlatans who refuse to play by the market's rules."
In 1996, Elliott bought defaulted Peruvian debt for $11.4 million. Elliott won a $58 million judgement
when the ruling was overturned in 2000, and Peru had to repay the sum in full under the pari passu
rule. When former president of Peru Alberto Fujimori was attempting to flee the country due to facing
legal proceedings over human rights abuses and corruption, Singer ordered the confiscation of his
jet and offered to let him leave the country in exchange for the $58 million payment from the treasury,
an offer which Fujimori accepted. A subsequent 2002 investigation by the Government of Peru into
the incident and subsequent congressional report, uncovered instances of corruption since Elliott
was not legally authorized to purchase the Peruvian debt from Swiss Bank Corporation without the
prior approval of the Peruvian government, and thus the purchase had occurred in breach of contract.
At the same time, Elliott's representative, Jaime Pinto, had been formerly employed by the Peruvian
Ministry of Economy and Finance and had contact with senior officials. According to the Wall Street
Journal, the Peruvian government paid Elliott $56 million to settle the case.
After Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2002, the Elliott-owned company NML Capital Limited refused
to accept the Argentine offer to pay less than 30 cents per dollar of debt. With a face value of
$630 million, the bonds were reportedly bought by NML for $48 million, with Elliott assessing the
bonds as worth $2.3 billion with accrued interest. Elliott sued Argentina for the debt's value, and
the lower UK courts found that Argentina had state immunity. Elliott successfully appealed the case
to the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that Elliott had the right to attempt to seize Argentine property
in the United Kingdom. Alternatively, before 2011, US courts ruled against allowing creditors to
seize Argentine state assets in the United States. On October 2, 2012 Singer arranged for a Ghanaian
Court order to detain the Argentine naval training vessel ARA Libertad in a Ghanaian port, with the
vessel to be used as collateral in an effort to force Argentina to pay the debt. Refusing to pay,
Argentina shortly thereafter regained control of the ship after its seizure was deemed illegal by
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Alleging the incident lost Tema Harbour $7.6 million
in lost revenue and unpaid docking fees, Ghana in 2012 was reportedly considering legal action against
NML for the amount.
His firm... is so influential that fear of its tactics helped shape the current 2012 Greek debt
restructuring." Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up
sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts", and in 1996, Singer
began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default-such as Argentina,
Peru-through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc.
In 2004, then first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund Anne Osborn Krueger
denounced the strategy, alleging that it has "undermined the entire structure of sovereign finance."
we wrote that " Trump's rhetoric is concentrated around a racist delirium.
He avoids to take direct position on social matters, issues about inequality, etc. Of course he does,
he is a billionaire! Trump will follow the pro-establishment agenda of protecting Wall Street and
big businesses. And here is the fundamental difference with Bernie Sanders. Bernie says no more war
and he means it. He says more taxes for the super-rich and he means it. Free healthcare and education
for all the Americans, and he means it. In case that Bernie manage to beat Hillary, the establishment
will definitely turn to Trump who will be supported by all means until the US presidency. "
Yet, we would never expect that Trump would verify us, that fast.
One thing we should
have learned over the past year or so is you can take any narrative being pushed by the
corporate media and Democrats, and
assume that the exact opposite is true
The current Trump-Russia hysteria could very well turn out to be the latest and most
embarrassing example of this phenomenon. In fact, well known Putin-critic, Masha Gessen,
recently warned in an interview with
her biggest fear is
a Trump-Putin conflict, not some imagined alliance.
Below I provide the excerpts from this lengthy interview which I believe are relevant
to the topic.
: I want to talk a little bit about where we are right
now. And then back up to why it is, in your life, you've figured out this expecting
the unimaginable. But recently, you know, American politics has been consumed by
Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. And you wrote something that a lot of people
were surprised by the other day, although I was not. And you said, "Beware the
And that, in fact, the Russia scandal that now threatens to engulf President
Trump's very new presidency, you wrote, "In effect, could be actually helping
President Trump and amount to a sort of a colossal distraction for us." What did you
mean by that?
: Well, a couple things. One is that, if you look at,
you know, what we actually know about the Russia story, which changes every day, but
what-at this point, what we actually know suggests that the likelihood that there's
going to be a causal link between the Russian interference in the American election
and the outcome of the election. The likelihood that was a causal link, and that that
causal link can be shown, is basically vanishingly small, right?
So-and I think that part of the reason-there are basically two reasons that a
lot of journalists and a lot of activists have been focusing on Russia is because it
serves as a crutch for the imagination. And again, I'm coming back to this topic of
imagination, which obsesses me.
So one way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is that it
allows us to imagine that, maybe, Trump will be so sullied by this Russia scandal, by
this connection, even if he can't prove a cause-causal link, just that the darkness
of the scandal will be thick enough of a cloud that he will eventually be impeached
by a Republican Congress.
That's a huge leap. And it also, I think, doesn't take into account the
tools-the rhetorical tools that will have to be used to sully Trump in such a way,
right? Which are basically xenophobic and, you know, corrosive to the public sphere.
And the other way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is it also
serves to explain how Trump could have happened to us, right? The Russians did it.
: That's exactly right; if it's an external thing. And
you wrote that very, very early on. Actually, before this latest round, that the real
threat to Trump would be to misunderstand where this comes from. And if it's not
Americans who voted for him, but somehow, it's a wily, dark conspiracy theory. That
leads you down a whole different set of responses to Trump.
: Right. Which-
: I think that's your point.
: That is my point. And also that it's destructive to
politics. Politics is what happens out in the open. And there's lots of politics
happening, right? There's this endless barrage of frightening bills being filed at
this point. There are the Cabinet appointments. There's the, you know, dismantling of
the federal government as we have known it for generations.
All of that is going on out in the open. And we only have so much bandwidth.
If we're not talking about what's going on out in the open, if we're talking about
conspiracy instead, then we are, by doing that, destroying the politics that we
should be preserving, right? I mean, how do we emerge out the other end, when Trump
ends, and Trump will eventually end. Everything ends, right?
If we've engaged in conspiracy theorizing this whole time, instead of engaging
in politics-and only by engaging in politics can we actually preserve the political
: I'm worried about Russia. I'm-this is-I mean, we're
already out of the honeymoon phase, and it's been less than two months. And I think
it's-I mean, the danger of having these two unhinged power-hungry men at
their-respective nuclear buttons cannot be overestimated. But-
: So you would see them as potential enemies as much
as potential friends? That this scenario-
: Oh, absolutely.
: -we should worry about is Trump versus Putin, not
just Trump and Putin uniting?
: Right. I'm actually worried about a collision with
She's exactly right. I completely agree that the disaster scenario with Putin and Trump
is if and when they actually clash. Once that happens, the corporate media and Democrats
will pretend they had nothing to do with it, as they always do. As Mark Ames noted on
All the worst Iraq war liars still have their fat media
jobs-where they now tell us public distrust in Establishment is a Kremlin conspiracy
Moving on, I want to once again turn to Robert Parry of
highlight just how ridiculous the whole "Putin bought off Trump aides" conspiracy is.
From yesterday's piece,
Missing Logic of Russia-gate
Democrats circulated a report showing that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who
served briefly as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, had received
payments from several Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.
The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in Moscow
in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the international Russian TV network,
with Flynn netting $33,750 after his speakers' bureau took its cut. Democrats treated
this revelation as important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump
campaign and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite different.
Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S. government
official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who often
pulled in six to ten times more, especially for speeches to foreign audiences. (
President Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment
bank with ties to the Kremlin, The New York Times
Yet, besides Flynn's relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post
RT negotiated Flynn's rate downward.
Deep inside its article on Flynn's Russia-connected payments, the Post wrote,
"RT balked at paying Flynn's original asking price. 'Sorry it took us longer to get
back to you but the problem is that the speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds
our budget at the moment,' Alina Mikhaleva, RT's head of marketing, wrote a Flynn
associate about a month before the event."
So, if you accept the Democrats' narrative that Russian President
Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential Americans to
betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed flunkies at RT are
quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest speaking fee?
Of course, you'll never hear any of this emphasized in the corporate media, they're
too busy pushing for a conflict between the U.S. and Russia.
A conflict that
once it happens, they will vehemently deny playing any role in propagating.
"... Past administrations of both parties have been vigorous supporters of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections. These protections can raise the price of protected items by factors of ten or even a hundred, making them equivalent to tariffs of 1000 and 10,000 percent. These protections lead to the same sorts of economic distortion and corruption that economists would predict from tariffs of this size. ..."
"... Trump administration officials at a Group of 20 summit rejected concerns about spreading protectionism and made clear that the new administration would seek different approaches to global commerce. ..."
"... The United States influence over the Group of 20 nations, even when the US is supposedly taking generally unpopular stances is striking and makes me wonder why there is no open dissent. What is supposed to be unpopular may be less so among G20 governments than commonly assumed. ..."
The United States Has Been for Selective Protectionism, Not Free Trade
The New York Times might have wrongly lead readers to believe that presidents prior to Donald
Trump supported free trade in an article * noting his refusal to go along with a G-20 statement proclaiming
the importance of free trade. This is not true.
Past administrations of both parties have been vigorous supporters of longer and stronger patent
and copyright protections. These protections can raise the price of protected items by factors of
ten or even a hundred, making them equivalent to tariffs of 1000 and 10,000 percent. These protections
lead to the same sorts of economic distortion and corruption that economists would predict from tariffs
of this size.
Past administrations have also supported barriers that protect our most highly paid professionals,
such as doctors and dentists, from foreign competition. They apparently believed that these professionals
lack the skills necessary to compete in the global economy and therefore must be protected from the
international competition. The result is that the rest of us pay close to $100 billion more each
year for our medical bills ($700 per family).
Financial officials from the world's biggest economies have dropped from a joint statement
any mention of financing action on climate change, reportedly following pressure from the US
and Saudi Arabia....
The United States influence over
the Group of 20 nations, even when the US is supposedly taking generally unpopular stances
is striking and makes me wonder why there is no open dissent. What is supposed to be unpopular
may be less so among G20 governments than commonly assumed.
It has long been a mystery to
me why European nations adopt policies that hurt their economies just to pander to the whims
of US geopolitics. Cases in point: sanctions on Iran and Russia and support for Israel.
It's all about fostering division. Give the snowflakes hope
and anger. Give the Trumpbots something to rail against.
Hell, in reading this article, I almost forgot that Goldman
Sachs runs the Trump administration and Feinstein.
Does anyone think Feinstein would pass a deep look into her
buisiness dealings with her husband Richard Blum? I fucking
doubt it very, very seriously. If the deep state turned the
eye of sauron on her, she would be wearing county jumpers
I'm thinking the breaking of this news of Obama wrongdoing has got to be
why in the span of two weeks he went from being 1) newly HQ'd/bunkered in
DC and 'ready to roll' against Trump, to 2) on the other side of the
planet for a long stay in French Polynesia, apparently w/o his 'wife'.
The Deep State/MSM trots out shit like this
precisely because the facts don't matter once the
narrative is set. Half the country will go on
thinking there's no way the story would have made it
this far were there not some there there.
I have wondered if some of the strategy is
to keep him on the run, on the defensive, so
that if he does go after some of the elite who
need to go down for their crimes, that it will
be framed as a dictator abusing his power,
engaged in partisan politics.
if he can go after them at all without looking
Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will
say that but they hate Trump no matter
Trump's deplorable supporters know
the score and will criticize if he doesn't
go after them hard and now is a perfect
opportunity. It was the Dummycrats who
demanded this investigation but want the
scope restricted to Russia, and Russia
only. And the rEpublicans won't bring this
up either because they suck too.
The first rule of Swamp Club is you
DO NOT talk about Anthony Weiner's laptop.
"Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that
but they hate Trump no matter what."
This whole "jew media hates Trump" meme is starting to put
off a foul stench. For one thing Trump has yet to do anything
to stop this war for greater Israel. Or take this latest
leak/Russian collusion news. After months of bluster, its a
nothing burger. Is Trump really made of that much teflon, or
is this all a show for the goyim and all the ignorant jews.
Just keep on scrolling. It really is starting to look like
Trump is a crypto jew:
Most reasonable people are sickened by this entire shit show, feel they
have no say, nor control. As always it is mostly a partisan echo chamber,
while the real events take on a life of their own. The great many, the
unwashed masses are merely riding on the crazy train, and the reality is
could give two shits. Other than that, another percentage spits back up
what they are told on the tee vee .
Yes, this paints a bleak picture,
but there you have it.
Sure its been goin on forever. Partisan head games, lying,
spying, stealing, cheating, theft, deep state parlor tricks,
hat tricks, etc. all that .. I didn't say the game nor human
beings were / was invented yesterday, and of course you're
spot on about glimpsing past the curtain, thank you interwebs.
I am merely saying, the depth of of problem, the extent, is
becoming increasingly "larger" by degrees of magnitude, as
will the eventual blow off top in my opinion, and also the
blowback, I would imagine ..
Obviously I could be
completely wrong on this and things will just swim along such
as they are, forever ..
...and the liberal snowflakes and their puppets in the "news" media will run
from this story like a vampire from garlic. Anything that proves them wrong or
might in any way bolster Trump is bad medicine for them...
A few days ago Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, introduced a piece of
legislation that would give the Department of Justice "new authority" to investigate potential violations
of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by the 'Russian Times' . Among other things, Shaheen said
the legislation was necessary to determine whether "RT News is coordinating with the Russian government
to spread misinformation and undermine our democratic process." We won't even bother to touch on
the inherent hypocrisy of such a statement, but here is the
press release from Shaheen's website :
Following intelligence reports that RT News operates as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government,
U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has introduced legislation that gives the Department of Justice
new authority to investigate potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by RT America.
"We have good reason to believe that RT News is coordinating with the Russian government to spread
misinformation and undermine our democratic process," said Shaheen. "The American public has a right
to know if this is the case. RT News has made public statements boasting that it can dodge our laws
with shell corporations, and it's time for the Department of Justice to investigate. My bill provides
the authority needed to request documentation of RT News and find out who they're accountable to."
The Director of National Intelligence's recent report titled Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections concluded that RT News officials have structured their affiliate
organizations to deliberately circumvent U.S. reporting and disclosure requirements under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. Senator Shaheen's Foreign Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement
Act gives the Department of Justice new authority to compel organizations like RT America to produce
documentation on funding sources and foreign connections.
Well, as it turns out, Russian officials have the power to launch meaningless witch hunts in their
country as well and have decided to demonstrate that power with the announcement today that they'll
launch a similar investigation into all U.S. media currently operating in Russia. Per
Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the
Question of Apartheid: Palestine and the Israeli Occupation
By United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western
This report concludes that Israel has established an
apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a
whole. Aware of the seriousness of this allegation, the
authors of the report conclude that available evidence
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty
of policies and practices that constitute the crime of
apartheid as legally defined in instruments of international
The analysis in this report rests on the same body of
international human rights law and principles that reject
anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory ideologies,
including: the Charter of the United Nations (1945), the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (1965). The report relies for its
definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of
the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the Apartheid
The term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include
similar policies and practices of racial segregation and
discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply
to inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing
and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons
over any other racial group of persons and systematically
Although the term "apartheid" was originally associated
with the specific instance of South Africa, it now represents
a species of crime against humanity under customary
international law and the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, according to which:
"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts committed in
the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic
oppression and domination by one racial group over any other
racial group or groups and committed with the intention of
maintaining that regime.
Against that background, this report reflects the expert
consensus that the prohibition of apartheid is universally
applicable and was not rendered moot by the collapse of
apartheid in South Africa and South West Africa (Namibia).
The legal approach to the matter of apartheid adopted by
this report should not be confused with usage of the term in
popular discourse as an expression of opprobrium. Seeing
apartheid as discrete acts and practices (such as the
"apartheid wall"), a phenomenon generated by anonymous
structural conditions like capitalism ("economic apartheid"),
or private social behaviour on the part of certain racial
groups towards others (social racism) may have its place in
certain contexts. However, this report anchors its definition
of apartheid in international law, which carries with it
responsibilities for States, as specified in international
The choice of evidence is guided by the Apartheid
Convention, which sets forth that the crime of apartheid
consists of discrete inhuman acts, but that such acts acquire
the status of crimes against humanity only if they
intentionally serve the core purpose of racial domination.
The Rome Statute specifies in its definition the presence of
an "institutionalized regime" serving the "intention" of
racial domination. Since "purpose" and "intention" lie at the
core of both definitions, this report examines factors
ostensibly separate from the Palestinian dimension -
especially, the doctrine of Jewish statehood as expressed in
law and the design of Israeli State institutions - to
establish beyond doubt the presence of such a core purpose.
That the Israeli regime is designed for this core purpose
was found to be evident in the body of laws, only some of
which are discussed in the report for reasons of scope. One
prominent example is land policy. The Israeli Basic Law
(Constitution) mandates that land held by the State of
Israel, the Israeli Development Authority or the Jewish
National Fund shall not be transferred in any manner, placing
its management permanently under their authority. The State
Property Law of 1951 provides for the reversion of property
(including land) to the State in any area "in which the law
of the State of Israel applies". The Israel Lands Authority
(ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of
the land within the internationally recognized borders of
Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership
by non-Jews. Those laws reflect the concept of "public
purpose" as expressed in the Basic Law. Such laws may be
changed by Knesset vote, but the Basic Law: Knesset prohibits
any political party from challenging that public purpose.
Effectively, Israeli law renders opposition to racial
Demographic engineering is another area of policy serving
the purpose of maintaining Israel as a Jewish State. Most
well known is Israeli law conferring on Jews worldwide the
right to enter Israel and obtain Israeli citizenship
regardless of their countries of origin and whether or not
they can show links to Israel-Palestine, while withholding
any comparable right from Palestinians, including those with
documented ancestral homes in the country. The World Zionist
Organization and Jewish Agency are vested with legal
authority as agencies of the State of Israel to facilitate
Jewish immigration and preferentially serve the interests of
Jewish citizens in matters ranging from land use to public
development planning and other matters deemed vital to Jewish
statehood. Some laws involving demographic engineering are
expressed in coded language, such as those that allow Jewish
councils to reject applications for residence from
Palestinian citizens. Israeli law normally allows spouses of
Israeli citizens to relocate to Israel but uniquely prohibits
this option in the case of Palestinians from the occupied
territory or beyond. On a far larger scale, it is a matter of
Israeli policy to reject the return of any Palestinian
refugees and exiles (totalling some six million people) to
territory under Israeli control.
Two additional attributes of a systematic regime of racial
domination must be present to qualify the regime as an
instance of apartheid. The first involves the identification
of the oppressed persons as belonging to a specific "racial
group". This report accepts the definition of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of