Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he
or she was accused of fomenting class warfare. “There’s class warfare, all right, "Mr.
Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."
Greatly simplifying Neoliberalism =
Casino Capitalism = "Transnational elites, Unite!" It is a
neo-Trotskyism with the word "proletarians"
substituted by the word "elites"
in famous slogan "Proletarians of all countries, Unite!" and permanent "Color
revolutions" as a variation and enhancement of Trotsky idea of "Permanent revolution"
Neoliberalism is a very interesting social system which by-and-large defeated and replaced both New
Deal capitalism and socialism (and facilitated the dissolution of the USSR by buying out Soviet nomenklatura,
including KGB brass). It is the only social system in which the name of the system is somehow is prohibited
by MSM to mention. In this system, like under Stalin's version of socialism, the state play the leading role in enforcing
the social system upon the people, brainwashing them with wall-to-wall 24 x 7 USSR-style propaganda
an, if necessary, by state violence (As Sheldon Wolin mentioned neoliberalism try to use violence selectively, as overuse of
state violence undermines the social system, see Inverted Totalitarism).
Instead of regulating predatory tendencies of capitalism
like under New Deal, state became just a corrupt policeman that serve large corporations and against
the people. In this sense any neoliberal country is to certain extent is an "occupied country" and the
neoliberal regime is occupying regime, much like Bolsheviks (with their theocratic state) were in USSR space. Much like during Robber
barons era, when the state helped to squash
West Virginia miner upraising in
1912-21.
The neoliberal state justifies its decisions, policies and rules in terms that
are commensurable with the logic of markets. Neoliberalism might therefore be defined as the
elevation of market-based principles and techniques of evaluation to the level of state-endorsed
norms. To the level of a secular religion in which "market" and "competition" are new deities.
Neoliberalism radically transforms welfare state. The idea of welfare is not abolished. But under neoliberalism only corporations
are desirable welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up.
In labor relations neoliberal pursue a staunch anti-unit stance. Labor is atomized, unions suppressed and individuals put
on the market "naked" on conditions dictated by employees. Which means squeezing goo paying job in favor of terms and contractors,
outsourcing and other anti--labor measure designed to preserve falling profitability in the market condition characterized by
falling consumer demand (due to lower standard of living for the majority of population). And this is done at any cost. Even at the
cost of human life. That situation gave rise to the term "naked capitalism".
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. that gave a rise of verious (often
stupid) metrics and cult of "performance reviews". It
redefines citizens as consumers, who exercise they political power mainly buying and selling, the
process which supposedly rewards merit (producing market winners) and punishes inefficiency. It
postulates a primitive (and wrong) dogma that “the market” always delivers benefits that are
superior and could never be achieved by planning. Which is definitely untrue for military
contractors. In a way "market" under neoliberalism is a kind of "all powerful deity". Which
makes neoliberalism a variation of a secular religion (compare with "God
building" faction of Bolsheviks Party which included such prominent figures as
Lynacharsky). As such neoliberalism, like
Marxism before, is very hostile to Christianity. And while Marxism absolutize the power of human
compassion and redefines paradise as a social system that supposedly can be built on Earth
(communism), neoliberalism denigrates the power of human compassion and enforces "greed is good" and "homo
homini lupus est" morale. Which turns into law of jungle for lower and middle class. In this sense it is more like a
branch of Satanism, with greed as a virtue ("Greed is good"), speculation as a noble activity (while
according to Chris Hedges "Speculation
in the 17th century was a crime. Speculators were hanged." ) and
the slogan "Homo homini lupus est"
as one of the key Commandments. See
Neoliberalism and Christianity
This social system can be viewed as dialectical denial of socialism and represents the other extreme
in classic triad "Thesis, antithesis,
synthesis". We do not know yet what the synthesis will be like, but neoliberalism as a social system after
2008 shows definite cracks. Much like the USSR after the WWII when people serving in Red
Army discovered what the standard of living was in Central and Western European workers and start
to understand that "state socialism" as practiced in the USSR can't deliver promise high standard of living.
And that helped
decimated communist propaganda once and for all, although Bolshevism as a social system still was
around for
another 40 years or so. Like Bolshevism before it, neoliberalism proved to be unstable social system. A utopian system
which is unable to deliver promised benefits to the common people, and which destabilizes capitalism
in comparison with New Deal capitalism, producing periodic crisis with increasing severity. The first of such crisis was "savings and loans" crisis,
followed by dot com bubble burst, and the financial crisis in 2008 which led
to the Great Recession.
In 2008 the large banks, which are the core of neoliberal economics, were saved from facing consequences of their "transgressions" only by massive state
intervention. All powerful market was unable to save those sick puppies. The consequences of 2008
crisis did buried neoliberal ideology which from this point looks like cruel and primitive hypocrisy
designed to restore the power of financial oligarchy to the level the latter enjoyed in 1930th. In 2016 it led to the
election of Trump who managed to defeat establishment candidate, neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton despite all the efforts of the
neoliberal/neocon establishment to derail him. Trump pursues the version of neoliberalism which can be called "bastard
neoliberalism" -- neoliberalism limited to the USA with implicit rejection of globalization (or at least large part of it).
Which makes Trump_vs_deep_state somewhat similar to Stalinism. Unlike Trotsky Stalin did not believed in the "World Revolution" mantra.
In the absence of alternatives neoliberalism managed somewhat recover after 2008 debacle, and even successfully counterattacked in
some LA and European countries (Argentina, Brazil, Greece), but the Great Recession still left of huge and
ugly scar on the neoliberal face. In any case glory days of triumphal march of neoliberalism all over globe are over.
Also the lowering of the standard of living of the middle class is no longer possible to hide ("it 's not enough cookies
for everbody"). Outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing in the USA -- the citadel of neoliberalism led to epidemic of
opiod abuse similar to epidemic of alcoholism among workers in the late USSR.
Impoverishment of lower 20% of the society (those who have so called McJobs) reached the level when we can talk about a third world country within the USA.
All those factors created pre-conditions for a sharp rise of far right nationalism.
In a way neoliberalism creates far right nationalism splash much like Gilded Age and the maker crash of Sept 4, 1929
capitalism created precondition for the rise of national socialism. Reading
NDSAP 25 points program (adopted in 1920) we can instaltly
feel that many problem that exited then are now replayed on the new level. After approximately 40 years of
global dominance is shows cracks. Backlash against neoliberal globalization became strong enough to
provide upsets, albeit temporary, which demonstrated itself in Brexit, and election of Trump.
Who, despite his election-time claims to be a fighter against neoliberal globalization, for
restoration of local jobs, and against the wars for expanding neoliberal empire, folded in two-or
three months after the inauguration.
Like Soviet version of Communism before it, Neoliberalism failed to meet
its promises of rising standard of living (and the key idea of justifying of raising of inequality
and redistribution of wealth up under neoliberalism was "rising water lifts all boats"
mantra, or as Kenneth Galbraith famously defined it
“Trickle-down theory - the less than elegant metaphor
that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” ).
We can stress again, that the current opiod epidemics in the USA is not that different from epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR under
Brezhnev's "well developed socialism". It is important to understand that under neoliberalism the key priority is
the maintenance of global neoliberal empire for the benefits of multinationals (with the associated idea of Global Neoliberal
Revolution which makes is similar to
Trotskyism). Opening new markets is vital for the interest of transnational corporations and that means that the USA
government supports the war for neoliberal empire explosion at the expense of interests of regular US citizens. Outsourcing and
atomization of the US workforce (squeezing unions) means that neoliberal government has an adversarial attitude towards its
common citizenry. They are, by definition, the second class
citizens (Undermensch or as Hillary Clinton elegantly coined it "basket
of deplorables" ) . While neoliberal themselves ("creative class") are new Ubermench
and like old aristocracy are above the law. So the idea Implemented in Soviet nomenklatura is now replayed on a new level.
As it evolved with time, neoliberalism is a somewhat fuzzy concept (
much like Bolshevism evolved from Leninism to Stalinism and then to Brezhnev's socialism ). In
various countries it can morph into quite different "regimes", despite the common "market fundamentalism" core. The simplest
and pretty precise way to define is is to view it as "socialism for the rich, feudalism
for the poor" or, more correctly "Trotskyism
for the rich" ("Elites of all countries unite !" instead of “Proletarians of all countries,
Unite! ...). So Stalins's idea of socialism in a single country mutated into "socialism for
the upper strata of population and corporations, especially transnationals".
In this sense neoliberals are as "internationalists" as communists
were at their time, and may
be even more. Thhe term "globalism" is commonly used instead of "internationalism". And like "Communist
International", the "Neoliberal International" accepts the
elite from any country, but only a very narrow strata of the elite and only on a certain conditions,
with the leading role reserved for the USA elite and part of G7 elite.
Much like in Comintern the role of Moscow as a leader was something that can't be even discussed.
Only taken for granted. Although spying capabilities of "Neoliberal International" via "five eyes"
are tremendously more powerful then the rudimentary capabilities of Comintern and the technology of
staging "color revolutions" is more polished then Trotskyite approach to staging proletarian revolutions.
Neoliberals also have more money and that matters. The allow to create a powerful "fifth column" in
countries other then G7 who are on the receiving end of neoliberal expropriation of wealth to
the top countries of Neoliberal International. Like in Comintern, "all pigs are created equal,
but some pigs are more equal then others."
The key idea of obtaining power by training the cadre of "professional revolutionaries" introduced
by social-democratic parties and, especially, Bolsheviks are replaced with no less effective the
network of neoliberal think tanks. In other words neoliberalism borrowed and perverted almost all major
ideas of social-democratic parties. The party core typical for Bolsheviks, and instrumental to the success
of their coup d'état in October 1917 against Provisional government by Kerensky was essentially replaced
by
the network of thinktanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored. Monte Perelin society
(the initial neoliberal think tank) explicitly tried to adapt successful idea of western social
democratic parties and Bolsheviks to neoliberal doctrine. One such "appropriations" is the level of
secrecy and existence of "underground" part of the party along with "legal" parliamentary faction (a
set of honorable (in a sense, what hey such politicians for example in the USA congress (honorable politician
is the one who after he was bought stays bought) politicians are just a tip of the iceberg), . Some
important work was also done by renegade Trotskyites in the USA (aka neoconservatives, especially by
James Burnham as well as staunch neoliberals like James
Buchanan (The
Guardian)
The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators
that “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential”. Instead of revealing their ultimate destination,
they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system,
they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical “reforms”...
Gradually they would build a [well-paid] “counter-intelligentsia”, allied to a “vast network
of political power” that would become the new establishment.
It also created it's own Neoliberal newspeak
and a set of myths ("greed is good", "invisible
hand",
"the efficient markets hypothesis", "rational
expectations scam",
Shareholder value scam, supply side voodoo aka "rising tide lifts all boats", etc). In
"neoliberal newspeak" the term "freedom" is used as the excuse for ripping down public protections on
behalf of the very rich. For example "free
market" means the market free from any coercion by the state (read "free from regulations") which makes it the
corporate jungle where the most powerful corporation dictate the rules of the game and eat alive small
fish with complete impunity. In no way neoliberal "free market" is fair.
Actually neoliberals try to avoid to discuss the issue of farness of the market. This is anathema
for them. As such neoliberalism has distinct
Social Darwinism flavor and enforces
scapegoating
and victimization of poor and unemployed
It facilitates over-consumption and getting into the debt both on the country (neo-colonialism)
and on the individual workers (debt-slavery) levels, and has sophisticated mechanisms of
enforcing this situation on unsuspecting population (IMF, World banks on the level of the countries),
credit card companies, mortgages, student debt on individual level. And a worker with a large debt is,
essentially, a debt-slave. Atomization (neoliberalism is openly and forcefully anti-union) and
enslavement of the workforce is exactly what neoliberalism is about: recreation of the plantation economy
on a new technological and social levels. Not that unions are without problems in their own right, but
crushing the union is the goal of every neoliberal government starting with Thatcher and Reagan. The
same model that is depicted in famous song
Sixteen Tons. With replacement of the
company store debt and private corporate currencies with credit card debt.
Like Trotskyism it is pretty militaristic creed and the dream of global Communist empire led from
Moscow was replaced by the dream of global neoliberal empire led by Washington. Neocons in this
sense is just a specific flavor of neoliberals --" neoliberals with the gun" as in Al Capone maxim "You
Can Get Much Further with a Kind Word and a Gun than with a Kind Word Alone" ;-). This "institualized
gangsterism" of the US neocons represents probably the greatest threat to the survival of modern civilization.
Neoliberalism elevates of market-based principles and techniques of
evaluation to the level of state-endorsed norms. The authority of the neoliberal state is heavily dependent on the authority of neoliberal economics (and economists). When this
authority collapses the eventual collapse of neoliberalism is imminent. This is a classic "the
castle built of sand story. "
"... However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years, the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American leaders that their own power had its limits. ..."
"... This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do, places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after a fashion, "contained." ..."
"... In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows"). ..."
"... The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels. ..."
Think of it as the all-American version of the human comedy: a great power that eternally
knows what the world needs and offers copious advice with a tone deafness that would be
humorous, if it weren't so grim.
If you look, you can find examples of this just about
anywhere. Here, for instance, is a passage in The New York Times from a piece on the
topsy-turvy Trumpian negotiations that preceded the Singapore summit. "The Americans and South
Koreans," wrote
reporter Motoko Rich, "want to persuade the North that continuing to funnel most of the
country's resources into its military and nuclear programs shortchanges its citizens' economic
well-being. But the North does not see the two as mutually exclusive."
Think about that for a moment. The US has, of course, embarked on a trillion-dollar-plus
upgrade of its already massive nuclear arsenal (and
that's before the cost overruns even begin). Its Congress and president have for years proved
eager to sink at least a
trillion dollars annually into the budget of the national security state (a figure that's
still rising and
outpaces by far that of any other power on the planet), while its own infrastructure
sags and crumbles. And
yet it finds the impoverished North Koreans puzzling when they, too, follow such an extreme
path.
"Clueless" is not a word Americans ordinarily apply to themselves as a country, a people, or
a government. Yet how applicable it is.
And when it comes to cluelessness, there's another, far stranger path the United States has
been following since at least the George W Bush moment that couldn't be more consequential and
yet somehow remains the least noticed of all. On this subject, Americans don't have a clue. In
fact, if you could put the United States on a psychiatrist's couch, this might be the place to
start.
America contained
In a way, it's the oldest story on Earth: the rise and fall of empires. And note the plural
there. It was never – not until recently at least – "empire," always "empires."
Since the 15th century, when the fleets of the first European imperial powers broke into the
larger world with subjugation in mind, it was invariably a contest of many. There were at least
three or sometimes significantly more imperial powers rising and contesting for dominance or
slowly falling from it.
This was, by definition, the history of great powers on this planet: the challenging rise,
the challenged decline. Think of it for so many centuries as the essential narrative of
history, the story of how it all happened until at least 1945, when just two "superpowers," the
United States and the Soviet Union, found themselves facing off on a global scale.
Of the two, the US was always stronger, more powerful, and far wealthier. It theoretically
feared the Russian Bear, the Evil Empire , which it
worked assiduously to " contain " behind that famed Iron
Curtain and whose adherents in the US, always modest in number, were subjected to a mania of
fear and suppression.
However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years,
the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the
Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the
never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American
leaders that their own power had its limits.
This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still
seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do,
places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever
thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after
a fashion, "contained."
In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power
was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the
planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows").
The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going
it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels.
That was the situation until December 1991 when, at the end of a centuries-long imperial
race for power (and the never-ending arms race that went with it), there was just one gigantic
power left standing on Planet Earth. It told you something about the thinking then that, when
the Soviet Union imploded, the initial reaction in Washington wasn't triumphalism (though that
came soon enough) but utter shock, a disbelieving sense that something no one had expected,
predicted, or even imagined had nonetheless happened. To that very moment, Washington had
continued to plan for a two-superpower world until the end of time.
America
uncontained
Soon enough, though, the Washington elite came to see what happened as, in the phrase of the
moment, " the end of
history ." Given the wreckage of the Soviet Union, it seemed that an ultimate victory had
been won by the very country its politicians would soon come to call "the last superpower," the
"
indispensable " nation, the " exceptional
" state, a land great beyond imagining (until, at least, Donald Trump hit
the campaign trail with a slogan that implied greatness wasn't all-American any more).
In reality, there were a variety of paths open to the "last superpower" at that moment.
There was even, however briefly, talk of a "peace dividend" – of the possibility that, in
a world without contesting superpowers, taxpayer dollars might once again be invested not in
the sinews of war-making but of peacemaking (particularly in infrastructure and the well-being
of the country's citizens).
Such talk, however, lasted only a year or two and always in a minor key before being
relegated to Washington's attic. Instead, with only a few rickety "rogue" states left to deal
with – like gulp North Korea, Iraq and Iran – that money never actually headed
home, and neither did the thinking that went with it.
Consider it the good fortune of the geopolitical dreamers soon to take the reins in
Washington that the first Gulf War of 1990-1991, which ended less than a year before the Soviet
Union collapsed, prepared the way for quite a different style of thinking. That instant victory
led to a new kind of militarized dreaming in which a highly tech-savvy military, like the one
that had driven Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in such short order, would
be capable of doing anything on a planet without serious opposition.
And yet, from the beginning, there were signs suggesting a far grimmer future. To take but
one infamous example, Americans still remember the Black Hawk Down moment of 1993
when the world's greatest military fell victim to a Somali warlord and local militias and found
itself incapable of imposing its will on one of the least impressive not-quite-states on the
planet (a place
still frustrating that military a quarter-century later).
In that post-1991 world, however, few in Washington even considered that the 20th century
had loosed another phenomenon on the world, that of insurgent national liberation movements,
generally leftist rebellions, across what had been the colonial world – the very world of
competing empires now being tucked into the history books – and it hadn't gone away. In
the 21st century, such insurgent movements, now largely religious, or terror-based, or both,
would turn out to offer a grim new version of containment to the last
superpower.
Unchaining the indispensable nation
On September 11, 2001, a canny global jihadist by the name of Osama bin Laden
sent his air force (four hijacked US passenger jets) and his precision weaponry (19
suicidal, mainly Saudi followers) against three iconic targets in the American pantheon: the
Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and undoubtedly the Capitol or the White House (neither of
which was hit because one of those jets crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania). In doing so, in a sense bin Laden not only loosed a literal hell on Earth, but
unchained
the last superpower.
William Shakespeare would have had a word for what followed: hubris. But give the top
officials of the Bush administration (and the neocons who supported them) a break. There had
never been a moment like it: a moment of one. A single great power left alone, triumphant, on
planet Earth. Just one superpower – wealthy beyond compare, its increasingly high-tech
military unmatched, its only true rival in a state of collapse – had now been challenged
by a small jihadist group.
To president Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, and the rest of their crew, it seemed like
nothing short of a heaven-sent opportunity. As they came out of the shock of 9/11, of that "
Pearl
Harbor of the 21st century ," it was as if they had found a magic formula in the ruins of
those iconic buildings for the ultimate control of the planet. As secretary of defense Donald
Rumsfeld would instruct an aide
at the Pentagon that day, "Go massive. Sweep it up. Things related and not."
Within days, things related and not were indeed being swept up. The country was almost
instantly said to be "at war," and soon that conflict even had a name, the Global War on
Terror. Nor was that war to be against just al-Qaeda, or even one country, an Afghanistan
largely ruled by the Taliban. More than 60 countries said to have "terror
networks" of various sorts found themselves almost instantly in the administration's potential
gunsights. And that was just to be the beginning of it all.
In October 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was launched. In the spring of 2003, the
invasion of Iraq followed, and those were only the initial steps in what was increasingly
envisioned as the imposition of a Pax Americana on the Greater Middle East.
There could be no doubt, for instance, that Iran and Syria, too, would
soon go the way of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's top officials had been nursing just such dreams
since, in 1997, many of them formed a
think-tank (the first ever to enter the White House) called the Project for the New American
Century and began to write out what
were then the fantasies of figures nowhere near power. By 2003, they were power itself and
their dreams, if anything, had grown even more grandiose.
In addition to imagining a political Pax Republicana in the United States, they truly
dreamed of a future planetary Pax Americana in which, for the first time in history, a single
power would, in some fashion, control the whole works, the Earth itself.
And this wasn't to be a passing matter either. The Bush administration's "unilateralism"
rested on a conviction that it could actually create a future in which no country or even bloc
of countries would ever come close to matching or challenging US military power. The
administration's National Security Strategy of 2002 put the
matter bluntly: The US was to "build and maintain" a military, in the phrase of the moment,
" beyond challenge
."
They had little doubt that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up,
destructive force on Earth, hostile states would be "shocked and awed" by a simple demonstration of
its power, while friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well. After all,
as Bush said at a Veterans of
Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the US military was "the greatest force for human liberation
the world has ever known."
Though there was much talk at the time about the "liberation" of Afghanistan and then Iraq,
at least in their imaginations the true country being liberated was the planet's lone
superpower. Although the Bush administration was officially considered a "conservative" one,
its key officials were geopolitical dreamers of the first order and their vision of the world
was the very opposite of conservative. It harkened back to nothing and looked forward to
everything.
It was radical in ways that should have, but didn't, take the American public's breath away;
radical in ways that had never been seen before.
Shock and awe for the last
superpower
Think of what those officials did in the post-9/11 moment as the ultimate act of greed. They
tried to swallow a whole planet. They were determined to make it a planet of one in a way that
had never before been seriously imagined.
It was, to say the least, a vision of madness. Even in a moment when it truly did seem
– to them at least – that all constraints had been taken off, an administration of
genuine conservatives might have hesitated. Its top officials might, at least, have approached
the post-Soviet situation with a modicum of caution and modesty.
But not George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and pals. In the face of what seemed
like the ultimate in possibilities they proved clueless when it came to the possibility that
anything on Earth might have a shot at containing them.
Even among their critics, who could have imagined then that, more than 16 years later,
having faced only lightly armed enemies of various sorts, still wealthy beyond compare, still
with a military funded in a way the next seven
countries couldn't cumulatively match,
the United States would have won literally nothing?
Who could have imagined that, unlike so many preceding imperial powers (including the US of
the earlier Cold War era), it would have been able to establish control over nothing at all;
that, instead, from Afghanistan to Syria, Iraq deep into Africa, it would find itself in a
state of "
infinite war " and utter frustration on a planet filled with ever more failed
states , destroyed
cities , displaced people , and
right-wing "populist" governments, including the one in Washington?
Who could have imagined that, with a peace dividend no longer faintly conceivable, this
country would have found itself not just in decline, but – a new term is needed to catch
the essence of this curious moment – in what might be called self-decline?
Yes, a new power, China, is finally rising – and doing so on a planet that seems
itself to be
going down . Here, then, is a conclusion that might be drawn from the quarter-century-plus
in which America was both unchained and largely alone.
The Earth is admittedly a small orb in a vast universe, but the history of this century so
far suggests one reality about which America's rulers proved utterly clueless: After so many
hundreds of years of imperial struggle, this planet still remains too big, too disparate, too
ornery to be controlled by a single power. What the Bush administration did was simply take one
gulp too many and the result has been a kind of national (and planetary) indigestion.
Despite what it looked like in Washington once upon a time, the disappearance of the Soviet
Union proved to be no gift at all, but a disaster of the first order. It removed all sense of
limits from America's political class and led to a tale of greed on a planetary scale. In the
process, it also set the US on a path to self-decline.
The history of greed in our time has yet to be written, but what a story it will someday
make. In it, the greed of those geopolitical dreamers will intersect with the greed of an ever
wealthier, ever more gilded 1%, of the billionaires who were preparing to swallow whole the
political system of that last superpower and grab so much of the wealth of the planet, leaving
so little for others.
Whether you're talking about the urge to control the planet militarily or financially, what
took place in these years could, in the end, result in ruin of a historic kind. To use a
favored phrase from the Bush years, one of these days we Americans may be facing little short
of "regime change" on a planetary scale. And what a piece of shock and awe that's likely to
prove to be.
All of us, of course, now live on the planet Bush's boys tried to swallow whole. They left
us in a world of infinite war, infinite harm, and in Donald Trump's America where cluelessness
has been raised to a new power.
Murphy also included the District of Columbia in his research, and found it had a
psychopathy level far higher than any other state. But this finding is an outlier, as Murphy
notes, as it's an entirely urban area and cannot be fairly compared with larger, more
geographically diverse, US states. That said, as Murphy notes, "The presence of psychopaths
in District of Columbia is consistent with the conjecture found in Murphy (2016) that
psychopaths are likely to be effective in the political sphere."
Surprised? I didn't think so. But still, fun to get some scientific confirmation.
The personality traits generally corresponding to psychopathy are low neuroticism, high
extraversion, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness.
Of course, D.C. came in first by far. But as he notes, that this is not exactly a fair
comparison, as it is a city being compared to entire states. The study finds that urban areas,
in general, correspond to more psychopathic personality traits.
Another interesting finding is that a higher concentration of lawyers predicts higher
psychopathy prevalence. I kid you not.
So removing D.C. can you guess which states come in the top three? I bet you can.
Connecticut
California
New Jersey
New York ties for the fourth highest concentration of psychopaths among U.S. states.
Interestingly, it ties with Wyoming which I would not have expected. But the author notes there
was a relatively small sample surveyed from Wyoming.
The least psychopathic states are :
West Virginia
Vermont
Tennessee
North Carolina
New Mexico
And it should not be surprising that the main correlation was that state with the lowest
percentage of people living in urban areas also had the lowest concentration of
psychopaths.
Perhaps psychopaths need to be around more victims, or constantly switch out their friends
and acquaintances as they become wise to their antisocial behaviors. Note that antisocial does
not mean loner, it means lacking empathy, remorse, and
behaving in a manipulative way that hurts others .
But to be clear, the paper is not so much identifying where all the psychopaths live, as
much as identifying general population traits which correspond to psychopathy.
This certainly leads to a higher frequency of psychiatrically identifiable true psychopaths.
But it also means that a large percentage of the population behaves in a somewhat psychopathic
manner.
While a very small percentage of individuals in any given state may actually be true
psychopaths, the level of psychopathy present, on average, within an aggregate population
(i.e., not simply the low percentages of psychopaths) is a distinct research question. While
empirical operationalizations of psychopathy frequently treat it as a binary categorization,
the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (Hare 1991) treats it as a spectrum. The operationalization of
psychopathy found here is consistent with psychopathy as thought of as a spectrum.
The study concludes:
Areas of the United States that are measured to be most psychopathic are those in the
Northeast and other similarly populated regions. The least psychopathic are predominantly
rural areas. The District of Columbia is measured to be far more psychopathic than any
individual state in the country, a fact that can be readily explained either by its very high
population density or by the type of person who may be drawn [to] a literal seat of power (as
in Murphy 2016).
Hailing originally from Massachusetts, I can attest to the highest corresponding personality
trait being "Temperamental & Uninhibited." Where did you think the term Masshole came
from.
If you aren't a psychopath when you enter the state, you soon become one from the traffic
alone. And I wonder if just being in such close proximity to people makes it a necessary
adaptation to care a little less about how your actions affect others.
There are just too many variables, so you become numb to the plight of others, and just need
to get the hell out of this traffic jam before I go insane!
Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo say that a meeting Stone took in late
May, 2016 with a Russian appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight,
following bombshell
reports in May that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan
Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in
Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and hat. On his
phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said.
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald
Trump... He doesn't pay for anything ." The Post independently confirmed this account with
Greenberg.
Aftter the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign
communications official who arranged the meeting after Greenberg approached Caputo's
Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The
Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big" money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
WaPo
Stone and Caputo now think the meeting was an FBI attempt to entrap the Trump administration
- showing the Post evidence that Greenberg, who sometimes used the name Henry Oknyansky, " had
provided information to the FBI for 17 years, " based on a 2015 court filing related to his
immigration status.
He attached records showing that the government had granted him special permission to
enter the United States because his presence represented a "significant public benefit."
Between 2008 and 2012, the records show, he repeatedly was extended permission to enter
the United States under a so-called "significant public benefit parole." The documents list
an FBI agent as a contact person. The agent declined to comment.
Greenberg did not respond to questions about his use of multiple names but said in a text
that he had worked for the "federal government" for 17 years.
"I risked my life and put myself in danger to do so, as you can imagine," he said. -
WaPo
"Wherever I was, from Iran to North Korea, I always send information to" the FBI, Greenberg
told The Post . " I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger .
Based on my information, there is so many arrests criminal from drugs and human trafficking,
money laundering and insurance frauds ."
Stone and Caputo say it was a "sting operation" by the FBI:
" I didn't realize it was an FBI sting operation at the time, but it sure looks like one now
," said Stone.
"If you believe that [Greenberg] took time off from his long career as an FBI informant to
reach out to us in his spare time, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you," Caputo
said in an interview.
Greenberg told WaPo he stopped working with the FBI "sometime after 2013."
In terms of the timeline , here's where the Greenberg meeting fits in:
April 26, 2016 -
Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud allegedly tells Trump campaign aide George Paoadopoulos
that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton
Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud
at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip
to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." Mifsud explained
"that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on
then-candidate Clinton." Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." -
The Federalist
May 10, 2016 - Papadopoulos tells former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an
alleged "
drunken barroom admission " that the Russians had information which "could be damaging" to
Hillary Clinton.
Late May, 2016 - Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on
Clinton
July 2016 - FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for
the first time, which would be one of many encounters.
July 31, 2016 - the FBI officially launches operation Crossfire Hurricane , the code name
given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
September, 2016 - Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an
energy policy paper while wining and dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on
September 15.
Foggy memory
Stone and Caputo say they didn't mention the meeting during Congressional testimony because
they forgot, chalking it up to unimportant "due diligence." Apparently random offers for
political dirt in exchange for millions are so common in D.C. that one tends to forget.
Stone and Caputo said in separate interviews that they also did not disclose the Greenberg
meeting during testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because
they had forgotten about an incident that Stone calls unimportant "due diligence" that would
have been "political malpractice" not to explore . -
WaPo
While Greenberg and Stone's account of the meeting mostly checked out (after Greenberg
initially denied Stone's account), Greenberg said that a Ukrainian friend named "Alexi" who was
fired by the Clinton Foundation attended as well, and was the one asking for the money - while
Stone said Greenberg came alone to the meeting.
"We really want to help Trump," Stone recalled Greenberg saying during the brief
encounter.
Greenberg says he sat at a nearby table while Alexei conducted the meeting. " Alexei talk to
Mr. Stone, not me ," he wrote.
The Clinton Founation has denied ever employing anyone with the first name of Alexi.
Caputo's attorney on Friday sent a letter amending his House testimony, and he plans to
present Caputo's account of the Greenberg incident to the Office of Inspector General for the
Department of Justice, which has announced it is examining the FBI's use of informants during
the Russia probe. Stone said his attorney has done the same. -
WaPo
Second FBI informant
Caputo hinted at the interaction in late May when he said that there were multiple
government informants who approached the Trump campaign:
"Let me tell you something that I know for a fact," Caputo said during a May 21 interview on
Fox News. " This informant, this person [who] they tried to plant into the campaign he's not
the only person who came into the campaign . And the FBI is not the only Obama agency who came
into the campaign."
" I know because they came at me ," Caputo added. " And I'm looking for clearance from my
attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning. "
Stone told the Post that he may be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and charged
"with a crime unrelated to the election in order to silence him," and that he anticipates the
meeting with Greenberg may be used to try and pressure him to testify against President Trump
(leaving no Stone unturned), which he told the Post he would never do.
There were several times during the Roman Empire when the Praetorian Guard murdered the
Emperor and then auctioned off the Emperor's position to the highest bidder. We're probably
close to that point ourselves where the FBI and CIA just dispense with the pretense and
murder the President and auction it off themselves to the highest bidder.
"The rally featured a pointed anti-war speech from Obama, then a fairly anonymous state
lawmaker, who deemed the impending Iraq engagement 'a dumb war.'"
The political entertainer Obama gave a number of speeches advocating transparency in
government, advocating for financial reform and even mentioned "we tortured some folks"
decrying torture.
Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as
he went with the flow.
Obama's Illinois anti-war speech served him well, as he could milk this "anti-war" stance
for years while running military actions as President.
Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty
words, the elite got what they wanted.
Bernie Sanders actually DID vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in
Iraq
"... It wasn't just bad intelligence, it was consistently purposeful bad intelligence. The consequences have been dire for the world, and our country as well. The Russians in that period never represented a serious military threat even to the continent of Europe, far less the US. ..."
"... You are correct. The forever wars are just one of the ways to bleed the Middle Class dry. The media propaganda and rule by the 10% can't let the suckers know what is really going on. There are always enough men to man the colonial wars but they are unwinnable unless the whole nation is involved. ..."
"... Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow. ..."
"... Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted. ..."
"... The MSM is waging a propaganda campaign at every level completely obscuring the truth. And the politicians play the fear card at every level. I don't believe any of us is in "happy compliance" at the airport. I for one, grind my teeth and cuss out the crooked corporations (including that bastard "skull" Chertoff who personally benefited from the x-ray screening machines) that reap a bundle of money from the so called screening and invasive body searches. Travel has become something to dread. ..."
"... The officer corps might be an opponent but I think that America has been badly served by them due to how officers are selected & trained and who makes it to the top. The only time they balk is when some idiot in Washington pushes them to fight the Russians or the Chinese. And most people don't really care in any case so long as the US wins. Out of sight, out of mind as they say. ..."
"... It's harder and harder to sell these military actions to the public. What are we in Korea and Japan for? To contain China? If you ask most people, they'll probably tell you that China won, or at very least our bosses are in league with their bosses. ..."
"... The Borg moves without regard to public sentiment, so we have to replace politicians with those who'll bring it to heel. That's a death sentence, but I feel like enough people have the guts to try and make it happen. ..."
"... *sigh* someone please trot out that Goering quote again: To the extent that public opinion matters, public opinion is easy to arrange. ..."
"... I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a solid electoral reason to have nice vague policies, not least because a campaign against foreign wars would be an excellent way for the left to make common cause with some parts of the right, such as the paleoconservatives and isolationists. ..."
"... It did for Russia. There is now an ongoing civil war on its border in Ukraine. NATO went to war with Serbia in the later 1990's. The breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will splinter Europe. Humans being humans. The strong will try to steal from the weak. ..."
"... The old adage that our country rallies around a war president is no longer operative IMHO. In a nation tired of perpetual war, the commander-in-chief would get at best a short-term surge in public approval by opening up a new battle zone, before slipping precipitously in the polls. Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy? ..."
"... Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy? ..."
"... Those are their constituents: beltway bandits, private contractors, public/private partnerships, insurance companies, arms companies, private equity firms, military contractors, and whatever other combinations you want to come up with. ..."
"... I remember when Tim Kaine gleefully suggested that we needed an "intelligence surge" to protect the country. I almost gagged. It was a not so subtle message of "prepare for the handouts to the private military contractor industry". ..."
"... How does positioning 2,000 – 4,000 US troops in Syria fit into your "Trump is a peace-maker" narrative? How about the comment Wednesday that the US will attack Syrian forces if they attack Sunni jihadis (er "moderate rebels") in SW Syria? ..."
"... How about us aiding and abetting a famine in Yemen that could kills tens of thousands? ..."
"... I think you are attributing a sentiment to juliania that her comment does not actually contain. She doesn't say Trump is a peace-maker, she says he was far in front of Bernie in using "anti-war rhetoric as a strategy." The example of Nixon doing the same thing indicates that juliania is well aware that strategic rhetoric and actual decisions are not the same thing. ..."
"... I know a fair number of Trump voters, and my read is similar to juliania's: Trump's anti-war rhetoric was a big draw for a lot of people, and helped many be able to hold their nose and vote for him. Understanding this and commenting on it does not make one a Trump supporter, obviously, or indicate that one puts any credence in his dovish rhetoric. ..."
"... You might be correct and my apologies to juliania if I misread her post. I have heard so much of the "Trump is fighting [the deep state, Wall Street, the neocons]" on other blogs that I am a bit hypersensitive and go off on a rant when I see or perceive that argument. From my perspective, Trump is doing everything in his power to entrench Wall Street, the neocons, etc. ..."
"... The war in Yemen is to secure the Saudi monarchy and our interest in their vast reserves of oil and gas. ..."
"... Are militarism* and democracy compatible? I'm not so sure they are. ..."
"... A lot depends on how you define "democracy", "will of the people" etc.. What the role of "finance" in a context of "capitalism" and "democracy" should be, e.g., citizens united(note orwellian language) may be considered a " reason why they would not be compatible" and even antithetical. ..."
"... America itself is the most destabilizing force on the planet. i would love to see what America leaving the world to its' own devices would look like. Like Weimar/Nazi Germany, nothing good comes from these kind of "American Values." ..."
"... The military is A-ok with Trump and this is what seems to matter. The roar of hysteria from the media over Trump first 2-3 months in office died down considerably when he showed a willingness to engage in a show of force by striking Syria (remember when he was so concerned about the welfare of children?) ..."
"... Only a *faction" of the security establishment is anti-Trump because he is skeptical of *neoliberal* globalism. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Prez who can't seem to enact *anything* to make lives better for the people who put him in office, is magically able to enact the agenda of the 1%. This repeat of the 1% 's manipulations is one I can do without. ..."
"... Regarding the question posed by this post I think there is very little evidence of an anti-war "fever" and even if there were, and if it were projected into the streets and/or ballot box, I am pessimistic that it could have any effect on the U.S. government of today. I don't think the U.S. government cares what the American people think or feel about anything -- except of course as those cares and feelings affect the mechanisms of control through the propaganda pushed through our media, the levels of surveillance and suppression, and the increased viciousness of our "laws" and their enforcement. ..."
"... I believe the U.S. government is run by several powerful and competing interests. So I think I'll ask a different question -- though in the same vein as that posed by the title of this post. Are those interests who compete with the interests of the MIC and Spook Industrial Complex (SIC) beginning to see the futility and stupidity of our endless wars? ..."
"... "Peaceniks are Kremlin stooges!" It's depressing when you can predict the media's response six months in advance. ..."
Is anti-war fever building in the U.S.? One would not think so given all the signs -- apparent public apathy toward multiple military
involvements, happy compliance with "security" at the increasingly painful airport, lack of protests and so on.
Yet there are two signs I'd like to put forward as indicating a growing willingness to forgo foreign "entanglements" (undeclared
wars), springing either from a weariness with them, a nascent abhorrence of them, or a desire to focus U.S. dollars on U.S. domestic
solutions, like the
hugely popular Medicare for All . (Click to see just how popular Medicare for All, called "Medicare Buy-In" at the link, is across
party lines.)
The first sign is Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician in America and by far its most popular senator, making statements
like these in the speech linked and discussed in the video at the top
of this piece. For example, at 9:00 in the clip, Sanders says (emphasis his):
SANDERS: In other words, what we have seen in time and time again, disasters occur when administrations, Democrat and Republican,
mislead Congress and the American people. And when Congress fails to do its constitutional job in terms of asking the questions
of whether or not we should be in a war. And I think we need to ask that very hard question today.
And here is the point that I hope the American people are asking themselves. Is the war on terror, a perpetual, never-ending
war, necessary to keep us safe?
I personally believe we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over
the world. We have now been in Afghanistan for 17 years. We have been in Iraq for 15 years. We are occupying a portion of Syria,
and this administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more.
We are waging a secretive drone war in at least five countries. Our forces, right now, as we speak, are supporting a Saudi-led
war in Yemen which has killed thousands of civilians and has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet today.
Talk like this is anathema in our militarized state, comments usually relegated to the fringes of public discourse. For Sanders
to say this (and similarly anathemic remarks elsewhere in the speech) certainly denotes a shift, especially since Sanders during
the campaign was not considered strong on foreign policy, especially progressive (non-orthodox) foreign policy.
As Jimmy Dore said in reply to the last sentence quoted above, "It's not Syria? Can you [say] "stop the butcher" is the worst?
No. Turns out what we're doing is the 'worst humanitarian crisis in the world today,' committing siege warfare in Yemen, which
is a war crime. And we're doing it, with Saudi Arabia."
Sanders also says we're "fighting terror" in 76 countries. Let that sink in, as Sanders wishes it to -- we're engaged in military
conflict in 76 countries, almost a third
of the nations in the world. I'm not sure many in the lay public appreciate the importance, or the likely consequences, of that
surprising fact. (For one example of those consequences, consider that foreign wars often
come home .)
Elsewhere in the video Dore asks, "Do you see Chuck Shumer saying our wars have had 'dire consequences'?" Sanders, it seems to
me, is launching a toe-to-toe battle with what right-wingers have lately been calling the American "deep state" and I've been calling
the security establishment.
The second sign comes from Donald Trump during the campaign. This isn't just Sanders going out on a limb -- taking a flier,
as it were -- on a deeply unpopular position. Consider how often Donald Trump, the campaign version, made similar statements:
He also famously
said this about NATO and its mission:
What I'm saying is NATO is obsolete. NATO is -- is obsolete and it's extremely expensive for the United States, disproportionately
so. And we should readjust NATO.
If the U.S. security establishment is working to get rid of Trump, to take him out by whatever means necessary, campaign
statements like that would be one of many reasons.
If Americans Could Vote Against the Forever War, Would They Do It?
I recently
noted how different the outcomes are when the public indicates policy preferences with their votes versus polling data. DC politicians
of both parties ignore polling with impunity. Votes, on the other hand, especially in party primaries, can force change -- witness
the Trump nomination and the Sanders (stolen) near-nomination.
In some ways, small but not insignificant, the 2016 election was a test of the anti-war waters, with Trump asking questions about
the need and mission of NATO, for example, that haven't been asked in over a generation, and Clinton, the proud choice of the neocon
left and right, in strong
disagreement .
It's too much or too early to say that Trump's public pullback from U.S. hegemony helped his election, though that's entirely
possible. But it's certainly true that his anti-Forever War sentiments did not hurt him in any noticeable way.
I'll go further: If Sanders runs in 2020 and adds anti-war messaging to his program, we'll certainly see the title question tested.
If the U.S. security establishment is working to get rid of Trump, to take him out by whatever means necessary, campaign
statements like that would be one of many reasons.
Bernie had better watch his back then. Make sure no one associated with him has any contact with any Russians or Iranians or
whatever.
The "security establishment/Blob" no coubt has already filled its supply chain with anti-Bernie Bernays-caliber ordnance, ready
to deploy. I don't doubt that there are plenty of James Earl Rays out there, happy to be the ones who will "rid the Blob of this
troublesome politician." Just remember that Bernie has a summer house, and his wife was president of a failed college, and he's
a GD Socialist, for Jeebus' sake!
There's far less than six degrees of separation between any one person and someone who is Russian or Chinese or Iranian or
whatever. Even two degrees of separation is enough for a headline these days.
Districts with military casualties correlate to Trump votes. I'd would be nice to see Sanders do a Town Hall on the empire,
in six months or so when this speech has time to sink in, in one such district.
Yes. Sanders is going to have to pull off a communicative high wire act bridging relatively acceptable criticism of "unnecessary
and expensive foreign entanglements" to hinting at the idea that the US citizens have to understand the expansive pressures that
flow from capitalism and the MIC. I've appreciated the regular links here to American Conservative and Unz articles. They are
valuable reminders that some on the Right aren't in complete denial, at least about the MIC.
One scenario would see a revival of the terms of discussion that briefly saw daylight in at least the late 1940s, when state
planners openly linked a "defensive" military posture with a need for markets. It would at least get the cards out on the table
and assist in clarifying how world politics isn't just a matter of great and secondary powers inevitably pushing each other around.
The idea of Realpolitik is a fundamental and fatal ground of reification.
Presidential ambitions aside, it would be a good idea to pressure trump's crew that are plotting to attack Iran. Plus, any
chance to push back against the awful Dem leadership is also a positive. We need to see more grassroots pushback against that
leadership. Sanders is the best around at generating that grassroots pushback.
Bernie makes many salient points on the Military Industrial Complex in a floor speech concerning the Defense Dept. budget bill.
I especially like the part where he is trying to add an amendment that would limit the compensation of CEOs of defense contractors
to no more than the Secretary of Defense ($205,000). This speech will not make him any friends among the military corporate contractors.
(26 min.)
We are in the world's most favorable geopolitical position. We have the Atlantic to the east, the Pacific to the West, Canada
to the North, and Mexico to the South. We have enough nukes to blow up the world many times over. I don't know why we don't don't
treat the entire imperial enterprise as a sunk cost and get out, starting with the Middle East (and by get out, I mean cut off
all funding, too).
The Taliban announced the three-day halt to hostilities earlier this month, days after a unilateral ceasefire lasting until
Wednesday was ordered by the government.
It is the Taliban's first ceasefire since the government they ran was toppled by the 2001 US-led invasion.
I don't know if it's Trump or it's just coincidence. But peace has broken out in Korea for hte first time in decades, and now
peace has broken out in Afghanistan for the first time in decades.
You should take a look at The Threat by Andrew Cockburn. Fairly exhaustive detail about how Russian military
might was inflated, in the 70s and 80s, in virtually every possible way. From badly coordinated civil defense, to the complete
inreadiness of its airforce, to the caste system pervading the army that had reduced morale to almost nothing, the overall picture
is pretty stunning, compared to the magnitude of the threat that was presented to the US public.
It wasn't just bad intelligence, it was consistently purposeful bad intelligence. The consequences have been dire for the
world, and our country as well. The Russians in that period never represented a serious military threat even to the continent
of Europe, far less the US. Nor do they now, spending less than a tenth on their military than the US. The 80 billion dollar
incease in the US military budget this year was more than the entire Russian military budget. Meanwhile,our own bases
encompass the globe, and we wage war and threaten genocide wherever we choose.
The facts are abundantly clear, that our own military represents by far the greatest threat to human life on this
planet.
I want to tell you, that you and I and everyone in this damned country, we are not just the most lied to people in the world.
We're arguably the most lied to people in history, at least if you consider the number and frequency of lies. It's a wonder we
get anything right at all! I encourage you to read more, and read more widely, and to start at a position of distrust, with any
foreign policy reporting that isn't based on first hand knowledge.
I am heartened by the position Bernie is taking, even as I disagree with him on the Russia hysteria and wonder at some of his
qualifications like "blunder" to describe out and out imperialism. We need to start somewhere, and why not start with "let the
people and the people's representatives decide when we use our military"?
I know many progressives on the left have questioned Bernie's foreign policy positions and for not going far enough in opposing
our imperial wars. Personally, I think Bernie knows exactly how stupid, immoral, illegal, and costly our wars are, especially
as it "crowds out spending" on his favored domestic policies. Bernie is also smart enough to know how he would be attacked by
our right-wing corporate media and the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex if he were too outspoken. So, he tempers his
statements, not just because his domestic agenda is most important to him, but also because he knows attacking our militarized
foreign policy will not play well with the working class base he needs to appeal to. Unlike Obama who played up his anti-Iraq
War vote, only to expand our wars across the Middle East and Africa (after collecting his Nobel Peace Prize), Bernie is holding
his cards closer to the vest.
> play well with the working class base he needs to appeal to
I think the working class in the flyover states is ready to hear that the endless war needs to end. It's tricky message to
convey, because "Are you saying my child died in vain?" But Trump saying Iraq was a strategic blunder went over very well, and
military casualties correlate with Trump votes . I think Sanders (or his as-yet-unknown successor) must deliver that
message, but it's going to be tricky, if only because it will smash an enormous number of rice bowls in the national security
and political classes (which overlap). Maybe we could move all the uniform-worshippers to an island, give them a few billion dollars,
and let them play war games among themselves. Cheap at twice the price.
UPDATE I would bet "addiction" would work as a trope in the flyover states; "the war machine is a needle in America's arm"
is the concept. Especially because
veterans are prone to opioid addiction . Again, the rhetoric would be tricky to avoid blaming victims or "hating the troops,"
but I think there's good messaging to be found here. (People do horrid things when trapped in addictive systems. That's why they
seek cure )
Sanders needs to protect the people who are part of the 95% who work for the military industrial complex. He does this not
by raising welfare (which Americans find humiliating), not by only giving extensive retraining benefits, (which in an opportunity
starved country like America, will only lead to work stints at an Amazon Warehouse) but by repurposing the capitol and retraining
the working people to issues that must be addressed for the future, such as energy sustainability or infrastructure that can resist
increasingly severe climate chaos. Furthermore, he must announce and do both simultaneously, probably via an MMT program and raising
Taxes on rhe elite 2% and via transaction taxes on all capitol outflow from the USA.
Stopping the war machine, but putting people out of work, will never be acceptable to those who work for the war machine or
the friends and family of those people.
You are correct. The forever wars are just one of the ways to bleed the Middle Class dry. The media propaganda and rule
by the 10% can't let the suckers know what is really going on. There are always enough men to man the colonial wars but they are
unwinnable unless the whole nation is involved.
The Bolshevik Revolution and the Bonus Army were within living memory of WWII leaders. The new global aristocracy has lost
all history and doesn't perceive the inevitable consequences of inequality. My personal opinion was that for Marshall and Truman
one of the reasons for the use of atomic weapons on Japan was that they did not want millions of combat tested soldiers traveling
across the USA by train with the ultimate destination a number of deadly invasions of the Japanese Islands. Each worse than Okinawa.
They were afraid of what the soldiers would do. This is also the reason why these Vets got a generous GI Bill.
You reminded me of Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq. She protesteted at the GWB TX compound if you recall and remains
an activist to this day. I can't speak for her but it seems to me like she understands that her son should not have died to further
this ugly, pointless war.
I can't begin to understand the pain of losing a child, spouse, parent, etc., but I can wrap my head around it enough that
I don't want anyone to experience it. And I have no doubt that facing the true causes of the war would make the pain worse. But
every time I hear this nonsense about how some poor kid "didn't die in vain" in VietRaq, I want to scream "yes they did! Now what
are we going to do to stop it from happening again???".
The tropes of "supporting the troops", yellow ribbons, "they are protecting us", etc. just keeps the propaganda ballon inflated.
Here is how I support the troops: I'm against war.
This reminds me of Forest Gump where some well meaning hippies call Forest Gump a baby killer. The peace activists must refrain
from blaming and shaming soldiers as a group; specfic criminals (such as those who committed crimes at my lai) should investigated,
shamed and punished, the whistleblowers should be greatly honoured, and soldiers ad a group should be respected and not blamed
for going to war, as indeed many do not know the truth for why the war was fought. On the other hand, politicians, lobby groups,
and venal media and intelligence agencies should be exorciated for the lies that they believe or spread, as indeed it should be
their business to try to discern the truth.
Hence it was very admirable when members of the Mossad leaked out facts that Iran was not pursuing development of the Nuclear
bomb, even while Netanyahoo was pursuing a media blitz to justify greater economic and ultimately military aggression against
Iran
Who is "blaming and shaming" anyone? I'm saying that I agree with this mother who lost her child that we should be extremely
skeptical about the motivation for war of any kind. And the lack of skepticism (expressed or not) impedes any real movement away
from war without end.
The Sheehans are real people who lost a son and brother. Forest Gump is just some character from a dumb movie. Good grief.
I think that you can respect the sacrifice and commitment of people who sign up to fight for their country while still criticizing
the uses that leaders have chosen to put them to. In fact I think that makes the message stronger: the willingness of our friends,
family, children etc. to sign up to fight and die for America places a duty and obligation on our leaders to ensure they are deployed
wisely and for the betterment of America and the world. Those leaders – the ones we elected – have failed in that trust, and continue
to fail. Our military friends and family haven't let us down – we've let them down, by not holding our government accountable.
It's time we changed that!
"The rally featured a pointed anti-war speech from Obama, then a fairly anonymous state lawmaker, who deemed the impending
Iraq engagement 'a dumb war.'"
The political entertainer Obama gave a number of speeches advocating transparency in government, advocating for financial reform
and even mentioned "we tortured some folks" decrying torture.
Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow.
Obama's Illinois anti-war speech served him well, as he could milk this "anti-war" stance for years while running military
actions as President.
Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted.
Bernie Sanders actually DID vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
Sadly, there is no contemporaneous transcript*
or recording . I remember the 2008 controversy vividly, because the Obama campaign released a campaign ad that purported to
be Obama delivering the Chicago 2002 speech, but it quickly emerged that he had re-recorded it for the campaign (see the link).
I think we're more than being lied to. The MSM is waging a propaganda campaign at every level completely obscuring the
truth. And the politicians play the fear card at every level. I don't believe any of us is in "happy compliance" at the airport.
I for one, grind my teeth and cuss out the crooked corporations (including that bastard "skull" Chertoff who personally benefited
from the x-ray screening machines) that reap a bundle of money from the so called screening and invasive body searches. Travel
has become something to dread.
You can tell a lot about a country's intent by the design of the army they assemble. Here is a deep technical description about
the new army the Russians are putting together. Hint: it is not designed to attack.
"The decision to create a tank army (armoured corps in Western terminology) is an indication that Russia really does fear attack
from the west and is preparing to defend itself against it. In short, Russia has finally come to the conclusion that NATO's aggression
means it has to prepare for a big war."
Interesting technical take on the whole thing. Worth a read.
Well, Russia could probably triumph over the austerity-racked countries of the EU, with the possible exception of France. But
it wouldn't be able to hold much for long if it had to occupy anything. And it would take a mauling in the process, a mauling
that would be prohibitively expensive to repair. The modern Russian military simply isn't organized in a fashion that is conducive
to large scale conquest. It has exactly one fully integrated, combined arms unit suitable for full-scale armored warfrare, the
1st Guards Tank Army, which was reactivated in 2014.
The nightmare visions of armor pouring through the Fulda Gap were basically always delusional. In 2018 they're downright laughable.
I don't think that the US can stop at this point. As an example, the one time the people were asked if they wanted to bomb
Syria the answer was a definite 'no' so the next time they never even bothered asking them. There is far too much money, power
and prestige at stake too consider stopping.
The officer corps might be an opponent but I think that America has been badly served by them due to how officers are selected
& trained and who makes it to the top. The only time they balk is when some idiot in Washington pushes them to fight the Russians
or the Chinese. And most people don't really care in any case so long as the US wins. Out of sight, out of mind as they say.
America is more likely to get single-payer health than for the US armed forces to pull back as any suggestion of the later
brings charges of being 'unpatriotic'. At least with single-payer health you only get charged with being a 'socialist'. Know a
good place to start? The US Special Operations Command has about 70,000 people in it and they want more. The US would be better
served by cutting this force in half and giving their jobs back to regular formations.
These are the people that want constant deployments in more and more countries hence cutting them back would be a good idea.
I expect things to go along until one day the US armed forces will be sent into a war where they will take casualties not seen
since the bad days on 'Nam. Then there will be the devil to pay and him out to lunch.
It's harder and harder to sell these military actions to the public. What are we in Korea and Japan for? To contain China?
If you ask most people, they'll probably tell you that China won, or at very least our bosses are in league with their bosses.
The Borg moves without regard to public sentiment, so we have to replace politicians with those who'll bring it to heel.
That's a death sentence, but I feel like enough people have the guts to try and make it happen.
One issue I have right now with 'anti-War' is that to be 'anti' is one thing, but to make serious arguments you have to be
able to present arguments about what you are actually 'for'. For example, if the US were to suddenly withdraw from the eastern
Pacific, the effect could be highly destabilising and could actually increase the chance of war. These are questions that need
to be answered.
Just to take one example of I think a positive idea – there is research
here which argues that the 'optimum' nuclear deterrent is less
than 100 warheads. This is of course a difficult argument to put into political play, but its important I think to put the militarists
on the back foot in order to make arguments for withdrawal from empire and peace mainstream.
I would bet that most people think that being anti-war encompasses the following:
-being for peace
-being for stability
-being for more social spending instead of military spending
-being for fewer civilians being killed
-being for fewer military deaths
Is that enough to meet your ridiculous threshold for 'serious arguments?'
you're being cavalier. PK makes a great point, and your vague and oyerly broad "fors" remind me of many arguments regarding
the 2016 election. The democrat side (Brock and CTR et al) couldn't say what they were for outside of abstract bernaysian generalities.
If you want to convince people (and I have this difficulty, as do I'm sure most of the readers here, trying to get dems off of
the russia russia russia putins bitch train)
You really need to focus on slow walking through complicated and dangerous waters, and just shut up sometimes when certain
people are just not going to listen, but if you can get that one cogent, not hysterical argument into the minds of the people
you want to convince, then you have a chance to stem the tide. Read some of the fantastic commentary regarding brexit from our
european commenters as an example of what works in discourse, and how to puts facts on the ground in a way people can relate to.
> You really need to focus on slow walking through complicated and dangerous waters . Read some of the fantastic commentary
regarding brexit from our european commenters as an example of what works in discourse, and how to puts facts on the ground in
a way people can relate to.
That's a cogent argument. I don't mean to imply in my comments that "getting out" will be easy. ("You must do it, Catullus,
you must do it. You must do it whether it can be done or not.")
We might begin by renaming the "Department of Defense" to the "Department of War," just to be truthful, and then ask ourselves
what kind of wars we want to fight. And I think most people would be very willing to cross anything that looked like Iraq off
the list, followed (it is to be hoped) with a willingness to rethink self-licking ice cream cones as our industrial policy. In
a way, the project would have the same feel as my hobbyhorse, gutting the administrative layers of the universities as not central
to mission.
Thanks tegnost. I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a solid electoral reason to have nice vague policies, not least
because a campaign against foreign wars would be an excellent way for the left to make common cause with some parts of the right,
such as the paleoconservatives and isolationists.
The problem as I see it with policies 'against' something is that you end up a little like Five Star in Italy – having gotten
into power on opposing everything bad about Italy, they are now facing a 'now what' moment, and are seemingly clueless about what
to do. As usual, the right makes the running.
The war-mongers will always find "serious arguments" for why we musn't end the American empire. Their arguments will be nuanced
and filled with details that would take the average citizen months, if not years, to verify and analyze. When the best minds in
the American empire can fail to forsee the fall of the Soviet Union or the response to their coup on Chavez, why should we put
credence in their "serious" analyses?
Meanwhile, the case against war is a simple and easily verifiable. "My son is dead." "My friend came home a broken person."
etc. Telling poor Americans that their family members need to keep dying because allowing them to come home would, maybe, make
war more likely in a country they've only seen on a map is an argument not likely to find much traction. It is also, in my mind,
ethically vapid -- an argument that presses for a guaranteed evil as a means of avoiding a possible evil.
Trying to forsee the outcome of major (or even minor) changes to a system as complex as the American empire is a sucker's game.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely a sucker themselves. In situations of such complexity, the only way forward is the ontological
one. All teleology is sheer fantasy. We should act, therefore, not on the basis of what we think will happen as a result of our
actions, but rather on the basis of what the just thing to do is. You can't base your actions on ends (as in "the ends justify
the means") because the situation is so complex that there is no way to credibly predict the ends that any action might lead to.
IMHO, the ethical policy is to bring 'em home. All of 'em. Let them protect our country, as they've sworn to do. Let us put
them to work rebuilding our infrastructure, assisting those who need it, and making the country better than it is, rather than
filling it up with more walking wounded from our endless imperial adventuring.
It did for Russia. There is now an ongoing civil war on its border in Ukraine. NATO went to war with Serbia in the later
1990's. The breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will splinter Europe. Humans being humans. The strong will try to steal from the
weak.
The question is how to restore the West's middle class. Without a middle class; revolts, religious and ethnic wars will inevitable
break out all over. The unrest right now is due to democracy not being compatible with globalization.
It was not just Bush who told lies to justify an invasion of Iraq. Members of Congress and the press did as well. Sen. Biden,
the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee then, would only allow pro-war people to testify to his committee. At the
time a lobbyist told me that the leadership of the Democratic party had decided to promote this war. They felt this would remove
this issue from the next election, which would then focus on economic issues that would play to their strength.
Thanks for this. Another reason to break up the MIC is all the money that would be freed up for health care, infrastructure
and the country's many other needs. Perhaps Sanders now realizes that the balance in USG priorities needs to be restored and he
is making an economic, and not just humanitarian argument.
As for Trump, it's just possible he meant what he said about NATO and all the rest. If one believes his real priorities are
his family and business it's hard to see what he gets out of perpetual war. That's more Obama and Hillary's bag.
Which doesn't make the above true. But we should at least entertain the possibility that it could be true.
As one who could never bring himself to vote for Trump (or for Clinton, for that matter), let me make a counter-intuitive prediction.
If Trump allows the MIC to goad him into starting a new war with Iran, he will lose if he decides to run again.
If, on the other hand, he starts no new war against Iran or any other country that does not threaten us militarily, then he
will be re-elected should he decide to go for another term.
The old adage that our country rallies around a war president is no longer operative IMHO. In a nation tired of perpetual
war, the commander-in-chief would get at best a short-term surge in public approval by opening up a new battle zone, before slipping
precipitously in the polls. Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally
crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy?
Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack
of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy?
They do it for the money, pretty much everyone in congress is a millionaire, including the ones who were not millionaires when
they got elected hmmmmmm .
Those are their constituents: beltway bandits, private contractors, public/private partnerships, insurance companies, arms
companies, private equity firms, military contractors, and whatever other combinations you want to come up with.
I remember when Tim Kaine gleefully suggested that we needed an "intelligence surge" to protect the country. I almost gagged.
It was a not so subtle message of "prepare for the handouts to the private military contractor industry".
> Another reason to break up the MIC is all the money that would be freed up for health care, infrastructure and the country's
many other needs
Since Federal taxes don't fund Federal spending, the connection between gutting the MIC and more money for health care is not
direct.
However, if you think in terms of real resources , the effect is as you say. (The same reasoning applies to finance,
where enormous salaries sucked in the best talent that might otherwise have been put to non-parasitical purposes.)
Mt is not yet sellable to the public, will take years. Best story is that foreign wars strip resources from local spending
and jobs, which is also what most pols seem to think. Bills should be presented as less for mil and mor for infra. Starve mic
You don't have to go back to the last campaign to see anti-war rhetoric as a strategy. Trump is already, in his meeting with
Kim, starting the ball rolling. (Moon of Alabama.com has a good recent post on the subject). Sorry Bernie, you are late to the
party, too late. Reminds me a bit of 1968. Nixon got in promising to end that war (which he didn't.) But it is good to see anti-war
stuff going mainstream at last. May it bear fruit this time around!
And yes, Gaius Publius, anti-war statements Trump made during his first campaign DID make a huge difference. They won him the
presidency, in my opinion.
How does positioning 2,000 – 4,000 US troops in Syria fit into your "Trump is a peace-maker" narrative? How about the comment
Wednesday that the US will attack Syrian forces if they attack Sunni jihadis (er "moderate rebels") in SW Syria?
How about us aiding and abetting a famine in Yemen that could kills tens of thousands?
Is setting us on a potential course for war with Iran further evidence of your "dovish" Trump?
I think you are attributing a sentiment to juliania that her comment does not actually contain. She doesn't say Trump is
a peace-maker, she says he was far in front of Bernie in using "anti-war rhetoric as a strategy." The example of Nixon doing the
same thing indicates that juliania is well aware that strategic rhetoric and actual decisions are not the same thing.
I know a fair number of Trump voters, and my read is similar to juliania's: Trump's anti-war rhetoric was a big draw for
a lot of people, and helped many be able to hold their nose and vote for him. Understanding this and commenting on it does not
make one a Trump supporter, obviously, or indicate that one puts any credence in his dovish rhetoric.
You might be correct and my apologies to juliania if I misread her post. I have heard so much of the "Trump is fighting
[the deep state, Wall Street, the neocons]" on other blogs that I am a bit hypersensitive and go off on a rant when I see or perceive
that argument. From my perspective, Trump is doing everything in his power to entrench Wall Street, the neocons, etc.
I was also receptive to the idea that Trump might be less hawkish than HRC (although I did not vote for him) but have now been
thoroughly disabused of that notion.
SW Syria does not have Kurds active, so these are Sunni jihadi-lites. They are however not HTS, which we re-branded from Al-Nusra
and had been classified as an Al Qaeda affiliate at one time. Of course we are framing it as a de-escalation zone; others call
it a jihadi base.
The war in Yemen is to secure the Saudi monarchy and our interest in their vast reserves of oil and gas. The war in
Syria is to secure our preferred pipeline feeding the EU. Our entrenched position surrounding Iran is no accident – we are an
existential threat to Iran and intend to remain that way. If China discovered a giant oil field under its western desert we'd
be there too. One rationale for all this control freakery is that we think we can maintain our "capitalist" economy, our silly
pretenses about a free market, etc. But Karma is the real truth-teller here: Free markets do not work. So it follows logically
that privatization also does not work. And to continue, at some point, forced capitalism fails. Markets fail. Profit seeking could
be the thing that brings it all down. It's a strangely comforting thought because it leaves us with a clear vision of what not
to do anymore. Unfortunately, people are not angels. If we attempt to invoke the ghost of John Foster Dulles and not engage in
little wars but just sell arms to every tin pot dictator it will be worse chaos than it is now. And worse still, chaos in a time
of environmental devastation. The only good option is the Mr. Scrooge option. Instead of arms and WMD and fascist control for
the sake of preventing uprisings, we should skip the fascist control part and directly mainline the resources to make civilization
thrive. Since that's definitely not capitalism, we'll have to think up a new ism.
Yes, let's devote enormous real resources to fabricating bespoke military aircraft that catch fire on the runway. Meanwhile,
we don't have any machine shops anymore .
> I have the feeling that Sanders here is reacting to all the ex-CIA (but not 100% ex) candidates taking over the D Party.
That is an excellent point. (I don't think it's just CIA, though; it's CIA and military personnel generally.* That's why I
voted against ranked Jared Golden low, because Golden (like Seth Moulton in MA) fits that template, which is vile.
UPDATE * "Professional authoritarians," we might call them. That would fit all this neatly into Thomas Frank's framework.
People ask if capitalism and democracy are compatible, and I think they are, at least I don't see any inherent reason why they
would not be compatible.
Another question: Are militarism* and democracy compatible? I'm not so sure they are.
Ancient Athens was on some level democratic, and the populist party typically favored war and expansion. E.g.Pericles and the
peloponesian war come to mind. By contrast, the aristocratic parties were generally less in favor of military adventurism.
However, a constitutional republic is not compatible with empire.
The link between populism and war featured prominently in "Electing to fight. Why emerging democracies go to war" This is a
fairly obscure book (one review in Amazon), but – by a wide margin – the best book I have ever read about politics or political
science. The last 100 pages are cliff notes versions of the politics underlying the start of many wars; the first 150 pages are
a really dense read.
A lot depends on how you define "democracy", "will of the people" etc.. What the role of "finance" in a context of "capitalism"
and "democracy" should be, e.g., citizens united(note orwellian language) may be considered a " reason why they would not be compatible"
and even antithetical. Noting that "militarism" depends on public funding, where should the power to influence this funding
be? Neo-cons, dominated by militarists, and neo-liberals, dominated by de-regulated banksters, may not be the same but certainly
seem like symbionts in the context of 326MM people.
America itself is the most destabilizing force on the planet. i would love to see what America leaving the world to its'
own devices would look like. Like Weimar/Nazi Germany, nothing good comes from these kind of "American Values."
the Ugly American is what American Values signify, and mostly always have. America is the most destabilizing force i ever read
of or heard of. Americans have just taken the Nazi theme of One People, One Land and One Leader on a Global scope. and it ain't
good. Either do as America tells you, or we will bring American Democracy to your country.
Maybe there's hope, as Caitlyn Johnstone implies in her last essay, i sure doubt it, though, as long as America/the Empire
continues to destabilize not just the Pacific but everywhere else in the world. Why does anything think the South/Central Americans
come to America. The American Empire has screwed up the Western Hemisphere so badly, these "refugees hope to escape from the American
made Plantations the Western Hemisphere has been carved into. These immigrants are just part of the blowback from the American
Way.
also makes me wonder if the Europeans don't understand why there are refugees coming through Greece and via boats, primarily
to Italy. dont they see it's America's Wars in MENA that are causing this "invasion." gosh, what a black and white cause and effect.
Germany needs workers due to the low birth rate. so, open the doors to the chaos America has made in the Middle East, and voila,
cheap labor and departure from an America made hell in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Algeria, the whole "New American Century"
Project the Neocons have us in and paying for.
Doesn't the average European see how American and Apartheid Israeli support for forces like the Taliban, Al Queda, Wahabbism,
and the ongoing media censored Yemeni/Palestinian Holocaust, wars of profit, i.e. created the refugess that are streaming into
Europe. Maybe the Europeans are also stymied by the Rich who keep the wars going and the Media who profit off the death of the
"deplorables" who no longer "matter."
i know in America most Americans are ignorant due to total control of the Media and the "narrative" that controls what can
be said. Americans have no shame when it comes to getting what they want, politically. no enough blowback. no sense of connection
between here and there or anywhere outside the Media Narrative.
as a bumper sticker from long ago said, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." The Empire will not give up
until it can't go on.
Thanks for calling attention to this. I noticed the same thing immediately, and I gave the remainder of the article less credence
because of it. A true leftie knows the difference between Improved Medicare for All and a Medicare buy-in program.
To me, making the argument that one must be 'for' something is simply a way to dismiss whatever the 'anti' side represents,
whether or not PK meant to be dismissive.
And it reminds me of the efforts to impede and dismiss the anti-war or occupy-type movement outright – "what, you people don't
have any policies (and nothing for us to analyze to death and criticize??) !!!! How dare you speak up about something!!! Go away
until you go to Harvard and produce a few papers. Until then, your silly notions mean nothing to us!!" and the underlying elitism
of the concept.
So, that is what I am reminded of, again, whether or not PK meant it that way.
(Before reading the comments) "If Americans Could Vote Against the Forever War, Would They Do It?"
Sadly, I think the answer is no, mainly because Americans do not vote based on foreign policy unless it "comes home," eg in
the form of body bags – a lot of them. The "wasted money" argument, which brings it home, might be the most effective; that's
a pitfall of MMT. Of course, as a practical matter there's a POLITICAL choice between guns and butter, whether or not the economics
is valid.
In those remarks, Sanders is filling in the gaping hole in his resume. It may be an indication that he plans to run in 2020.
Finally: I question whether the 2016 nomination was actually "stolen." Certainly there was a good deal of cheating by the party,
but I'm not convinced it was decisive (there's no way to be sure). The actual votes ran about 47% for Sanders, and that's including
Oregon and California. I think that reflects the actual nature of the Democratic Party.
The reason is that its membership has been falling, if not plummeting, at the same time that its policies have become more
and more right-wing. Affiliation, which is a poll result, is down near 30%; I suspect registrations have fallen, too, but I haven't
seen numbers. Given the variations in state law, registrations aren't very indicative. All that means that the remaining party
members are a remnant that has been selected for conservatism. The primary vote reflects that. (This doesn't change the argument
that the Dems knowingly chose their weaker candidate; it just means that the voters did, too.)
The military is A-ok with Trump and this is what seems to matter. The roar of hysteria from the media over Trump first
2-3 months in office died down considerably when he showed a willingness to engage in a show of force by striking Syria (remember
when he was so concerned about the welfare of children?)
Only a *faction" of the security establishment is anti-Trump because he is skeptical of *neoliberal* globalism. However
this faction is doing a great job of re-enacting the framework used to deny/disrupt/disable during the Clinton administration:
scandals and selective corruption investigations. This serves a purpose: to martyr the Prez with the constituents who *should*
be holding the Prez accountable on lack of follow through and betrayal of promises made on the camapign trail.
Trump voters can't make him hold himaccountable; they are too busy feeling he has been victimized -- and many Trump voters
are victims, so the identification is real.
Meanwhile, the Prez who can't seem to enact *anything* to make lives better for the people who put him in office, is magically
able to enact the agenda of the 1%. This repeat of the 1% 's manipulations is one I can do without.
Regarding the question posed by this post I think there is very little evidence of an anti-war "fever" and even if there
were, and if it were projected into the streets and/or ballot box, I am pessimistic that it could have any effect on the U.S.
government of today. I don't think the U.S. government cares what the American people think or feel about anything -- except of
course as those cares and feelings affect the mechanisms of control through the propaganda pushed through our media, the levels
of surveillance and suppression, and the increased viciousness of our "laws" and their enforcement.
I believe the U.S. government is run by several powerful and competing interests. So I think I'll ask a different question
-- though in the same vein as that posed by the title of this post. Are those interests who compete with the interests of the
MIC and Spook Industrial Complex (SIC) beginning to see the futility and stupidity of our endless wars? Are those interests
growing anxious at enriching their share of the pie by shoving aside the budget gluttons feasting on war? Are any of those interests
whose long-term, and often short-term interests are damaged by endless wars and their ongoing deconstruction of American Empire
finally growing weary of how those wars undermine the American Empire? War may be a racket but the burning of bridges and collapse
of Empire isn't a racket I would hope even the most clueless of our masters will continue to tolerate. Have the MIC and SIC assumed
power?
Decimation of anti-war forces and flourishing of Russophobia are two immanent features of the US neoliberalism. As long as
the maintinace fo the US global neoliberal empire depends of weakening and, possibly, dismembering Russia it is naive to expect any
change. Russian version of soft "national neoliberalism" is not that different, in principle form Trump version of hard
"netional neoliberalism" so those leaders might have something to talk about. In other words as soon as the USA denounce
neoliberal globalization that might be some openings.
Ten ways the new US-Russian Cold War is increasingly becoming more dangerous than the one we survived.
The political epicenter of the new Cold War is not in far-away Berlin, as it was from the late 1940s on, but directly on
Russia's borders, from the Baltic states and Ukraine to the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Each of these new Cold War fronts
is, or has recently been, fraught with the possibly of hot war. US-Russian military relations are especially tense today in the Baltic
region, where a large-scale NATO buildup is under way, and in Ukraine, where a US-Russian proxy war is intensifying. The "Soviet
Bloc" that once served as a buffer between NATO and Russia no longer exists. And many imaginable incidents on the West's new Eastern
Front, intentional or unintentional, could easily trigger actual war between the United States and Russia. What brought about this
unprecedented situation on Russia's borders -- at least since the Nazi German invasion in 1941 -- was, of course, the exceedingly
unwise decision, in the late 1990s, to expand NATO eastward. Done in the name of "security," it has made all the states involved
only more insecure.
Proxy wars were a feature of the old Cold War, but usually small ones in what was called the "Third World" -- in Africa,
for example -- and they rarely involved many, if any, Soviet or American personnel, mostly only money and weapons. Today's US-Russian
proxy wars are different, located in the center of geopolitics and accompanied by too many American and Russian trainers, minders,
and possibly fighters. Two have already erupted: in Georgia in 2008, where Russian forces fought a Georgian army financed, trained,
and minded by American funds and personnel; and in Syria, where in February
scores
of Russians were killed by US-backed anti-Assad forces . Moscow did not retaliate, but it has pledged to do so if there is "a
next time," as there very well may be. If so, this would in effect be war directly between Russia and America. Meanwhile, the risk
of such a direct conflict continues to grow in Ukraine, where the country's US-backed but politically failing President Petro Poroshenko
seems increasingly tempted to launch another all-out military assault on rebel-controlled Donbass, backed by Moscow. If he does so,
and the assault does not quickly fail as previous ones have, Russia will certainly intervene in eastern Ukraine with a truly tangible
"invasion." Washington will then have to make a fateful war-or-peace decision. Having already reneged on its commitments to the Minsk
Accords, which are the best hope for ending the four-year Ukrainian crisis peacefully, Kiev seems to have an unrelenting impulse
to be a tail wagging the dog of war. Certainly, its capacity for provocations and disinformation are second to none, as evidenced
again last week by the faked "assassination and resurrection" of the journalist Arkady Babchenko.
The Western, but especially American, years-long demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, is also unprecedented. Too
obvious to reiterate here, no Soviet leader, at least since Stalin, was ever subjected to such prolonged, baseless, crudely derogatory
personal vilification. Whereas Soviet leaders were generally regarded as acceptable negotiating partners for American presidents,
including at major summits, Putin has been made to seem to be an illegitimate national leader -- at best "a KGB thug," at worst a
murderous "mafia boss."
Still more, demonizing Putin has generated a
widespread Russophobic vilification
of Russia itself , or what The New York Times and other mainstream-media outlets have taken to calling "
Vladimir Putin's Russia ." Yesterday's enemy was Soviet Communism. Today it is increasingly Russia, thereby also delegitimizing
Russia as a great power with legitimate national interests. "The Parity Principle," as Cohen termed it during the preceding Cold
War -- the principle that both sides had legitimate interests at home and abroad, which was the basis for diplomacy and negotiations,
and symbolized by leadership summits -- no longer exists, at least on the American side. Nor does the acknowledgment that both sides
were to blame, at least to some extent, for that Cold War. Among influential American observers
who at least
recognize the reality of the new Cold War , "Putin's Russia" alone is to blame. When there is no recognized parity and shared
responsibility, there is little space for diplomacy -- only for increasingly militarized relations, as we are witnessing today.
Meanwhile, most of the Cold War safeguards -- cooperative mechanisms and mutually observed rules of conduct that evolved
over decades in order to prevent superpower hot war -- have been vaporized or badly frayed since the Ukrainian crisis in 2014,
as the
UN General Secretary António Guterres, almost alone, has recognized : "The Cold War is back -- with a vengeance but with a difference.
The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present." Trump's
recent missile strike on Syria carefully avoided killing any Russians there, but here too Moscow has vowed to retaliate against US
launchers or other forces involved if there is a "next time," as, again, there may be. Even the decades-long process of arms control
may, we are told by an
expert , be coming to an "end." If so, it will mean an unfettered new nuclear-arms race but also the termination of an ongoing
diplomatic process that buffered US-Soviet relations during very bad political times. In short, if there are any new Cold War rules
of conduct, they are yet to be formulated and mutually accepted. Nor does this semi-anarchy take into account the new warfare technology
of cyber-attacks. What are its implications for the secure functioning of existential Russian and American nuclear command-and-control
and early-warning systems that guard against an accidental launching of missiles still on high alert?
Russiagate allegations that the American president has been compromised by -- or is even an agent of -- the Kremlin are
also without precedent. These allegations have had profoundly dangerous consequences, among them the nonsensical but mantra-like
warfare declaration that "Russia attacked America" during the 2016 presidential election; crippling assaults on President Trump every
time he speaks with Putin in person or by phone; and making both Trump and Putin so toxic that even most politicians, journalists,
and professors who understand the present-day dangers are reluctant to speak out against US contributions to the new Cold War.
Mainstream-media outlets have, of course, played a woeful role in all of this. Unlike in the past, when pro-détente
advocates had roughly equal access to mainstream media, today's new Cold War media enforce their orthodox narrative that Russia is
solely to blame. They practice not diversity of opinion and reporting but "confirmation bias." Alternative voices (with, yes, alternative
or opposing facts) rarely appear any longer in the most influential mainstream newspapers or on television or radio broadcasts. One
alarming result is that "disinformation" generated by or pleasing to Washington and its allies has consequences before it can be
corrected. The fake Babchenko assassination (allegedly ordered by Putin, of course) was quickly exposed, but not the alleged Skripal
assassination attempt in the UK, which led to the largest US expulsion of Russian diplomats in history before London's official version
of the story began to fall apart. This too is unprecedented: Cold War without debate, which in turn precludes the frequent rethinking
and revising of US policy that characterized the preceding 40-year Cold War -- in effect, an enforced dogmatization of US policy
that is both exceedingly dangerous and undemocratic.
Equally unsurprising, and also very much unlike during the 40-year Cold War, there is virtually no significant opposition
in the American mainstream to the US role in the new Cold War -- not in the media, not in Congress, not in the two major political
parties, not in the universities, not at grassroots levels. This too is unprecedented, dangerous, and contrary to real democracy.
Consider only the thunderous silence of scores of large US corporations that have been doing profitable business in post-Soviet Russia
for years, from fast-food chains and automobile manufacturers to pharmaceutical and energy giants. And contrast their behavior to
that of CEOs of PepsiCo, Control Data, IBM, and other major American corporations seeking entry to the Soviet market in the 1970s
and 1980s, when they publicly supported and even funded pro-détente organizations and politicians. How to explain the silence of
their counterparts today, who are usually so profit-motivated? Are they too fearful of being labeled "pro-Putin" or possibly "pro-Trump"?
If so, will this Cold War continue to unfold with only very rare profiles of courage in any high places? 9. And then there is the
widespread escalatory myth that today's Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, is too weak -- its economy too small and fragile, its leader
too "isolated in international affairs" -- to wage a sustained Cold War, and that eventually Putin, who is "punching above his weight,"
as the cliché has it, will capitulate. This too is a dangerous delusion.
As Cohen has shown previously ,
"Putin's Russia" is hardly isolated in world affairs, and is becoming even less so, even in Europe, where at least five governments
are tilting away from Washington and Brussels and perhaps from their economic sanctions on Russia. Indeed, despite the sanctions,
Russia's energy industry and agricultural exports are flourishing. Geopolitically, Moscow has many military and related advantages
in regions where the new Cold War has unfolded. And no state with Russia's modern nuclear and other weapons is "punching above its
weight." Above all, the great majority of Russian people have rallied behind Putin because t
hey believe
their country is under attack by the US-led West . Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Russia's history understands it is
highly unlikely to capitulate under any circumstances.
Finally (at least as of now), there is the growing war-like "hysteria" often commented on in both Washington and Moscow. It
is driven by various factors, but television talk/"news" broadcasts, which are as common in Russia as in the United States, play
a major role. Perhaps only an extensive quantitative study could discern which plays a more lamentable role in promoting this frenzy
-- MSNBC and CNN or their Russian counterparts. For Cohen, the Russian dark witticism seems apt: "Both are worst" ( Oba khuzhe
). Again, some of this American broadcast extremism existed during the preceding Cold War, but almost always balanced, even
offset, by truly informed, wiser opinions, which are now largely excluded.
Is this analysis of the dangers inherent in the new Cold War itself extremist or alarmist? Even SOME usually reticent specialists
would seem to agree with Cohen's general assessment. Experts gathered by a centrist Washington think tank
thought that on a scale of 1 to 10,
there is a 5 to 7 chance of actual war with Russia. A former head of British M16 is
reported as saying
that "for the first time in living memory, there's a realistic chance of a superpower conflict." And a respected retired Russian
general tells
the same think tank that any military confrontation "will end up with the use of nuclear weapons between the United States and
Russia."
In today's dire circumstances, one Trump-Putin summit cannot eliminate the new Cold War dangers. But US-Soviet summits traditionally
served three corollary purposes. They created a kind of security partnership -- not a conspiracy -- that involved each leader's limited
political capital at home, which the other should recognize and not heedlessly jeopardize. They sent a clear message to the two leaders'
respective national-security bureaucracies, which often did not favor détente-like cooperation, that the "boss" was determined and
that they must end their foot-dragging, even sabotage. And summits, with their exalted rituals and intense coverage, usually improved
the media-political environment needed to enhance cooperation amid Cold War conflicts. If a Trump-Putin summit achieves even some
of those purposes, it might result in a turning away from the precipice that now looms
"... The net result will be more of the aluminum market will flow through the Yuan rather than the dollar, neatly avoiding sanctions and any future threats. Because with the insanity caused by the overnight chaos in April, any aluminum supplier/consumer will be wary of another such edict from the naked Emperor in D.C. ..."
"... Rusal will be one of the main beneficiaries since Russian banks are already sanctioned. ..."
"... Abusing your customers is never a winning marketplace strategy and that's exactly what Trump's sanctions policy is doing, abusing customers of the dollar. Trust has been the dollar's strongest attribute for a long time now and it is the primary reason why it has dominated trade and reserves. ..."
"... But there is a limit to how much your customers will take. And Trump is pushing well beyond that limit. And when the benefits of using the dollar are eclipsed by the liabilities, people will naturally shift away from it. ..."
"... Putin has and will use future mini-crises like this to further clean up the rot left over from the Yeltsin years, like Deripaska, while building a Russia insulated from future attacks like this. ..."
"... The struggle for most Americans regarding this issue is the fact that the Ministry of Truth has always told us "Russia Bad!" while "US Good!". The Ole good guy vs bad guy paradigm. I grew up in the 80's and am very familiar with that paradigm. I am an American through and through but our government has become the most corrupt bunch of whoring thieves on the planet. ..."
"... True Americans have awakened to realize the power of our corrupt government lies in the dollar hegemony. True Americans hate it, and hate the power and control it wields in our own lives. We see it at work around the world. We see DC squeeze our lives to subsidize it's world empire. An empire is seeks to maintain for various reasons that are debated regularly. ..."
"... The USA is drunk on power with their dollar as they see it as invincible. It will be their own undoing. The world is eager and preparing to drop/run/destroy the dollar. One day they'll all lick their wounds take their losses and forget the dollar completely. ..."
"... The US will have to do one of the hardest things in the history of the nation. She'll have to stop LYING to herself! All those recommending weaponization of the petrodollar, are charlatans. The USA cannot get through restructuring via antagonism, that only tightens the economic noose. ..."
"... What is needed, is bankruptcy protection, via honest cooperation with the emergent economic powers in the East. This comes with a price, retrenchment of imperium. This in turn, requires sobriety that, the game while not completely lost, as in national decomposition, is nevertheless, unwinnable, as in rebuilding can only follow retrenchment. ..."
Looking at the unfolding trade war between Donald Trump and the world the phrase that should
come to mind is "One good turn deserves another."
In the case of the insane sanctions on Oleg Deripaska and Russian Aluminum giant, Rusal,
back in April, we finally got some clarity as to how Russia can and will respond to future
events.
In yesterday's Treasury International Capital (TIC) report, we saw clearly that Russia
activated its nearly $100 billion in U.S. Treasury debt to buy dollars in April.
More than $47 billion in U.S. debt was dumped into the market to cover the chaos engendered
by Trump's overnight diktat for the world to stop doing business with Rusal.
Also of note, U.S. ally Japan continues to shed Treasuries at around 8-10 billion per month.
Ireland dumped $17 billion and Luxembourg nearly $8 billion.
While China dropped $5 billion this is noise, ultimately as its holdings of U.S. debt have
been stable for over a year now. What is interesting is Belgium, the home of Euroclear, seeing
a $12 billion inflow. Likely that's where some of the Russian-held debt was traded to.
The Russians likely sold from their balance on reserve with the Federal Reserve. Here's the
latest iteration of the chart I keep for just such an occasion.
Rusal's shares and bonds went bidless but the damage wasn't contained there as major
Russian banks like VTB and Sberbank were hit hard as well. So, while Rusal didn't have much
in the way of dollar-denominated debt. It did have major dollar-related obligations as accounts
receivable on its balance sheet because of the sheer size of its trade conducted in
dollars.
And that's why there was such an outflow from Russia's stock of Treasuries. But, here's the
thing. It didn't matter one whit. Why? It didn't undermine Russia's Foreign Exchange
Reserves.
No Dip in Russia's Foreign Exchange Reserves During Rusal Crisis
Russia just sold Treasuries into the market, raised dollars and swapped out Rusal's bonds,
holding them as collateral for a Repo.
The Bank of Russia Intervened to keep Rusal and Other Banks Solvent by Dumping U.S.
Treasuries
This mass dumping of U.S. debt caused the long end of the U.S. yield curve to blow out past
significant resistance points, like the 10 year pushing above 3.05% in sympathy with the Fed's
policy to dry up dollar liquidity. If this first-order analysis by Zerohedge is correct, then
we can assume Russia has been holding a lot of long-dated Treasuries versus say China which we
know has shortened up the average maturity of their massive bond portfolio.
In times past we may have not seen such a massive dump of U.S. debt by Russia. They may have
simply sold dollars directly or swapped euros or yuan for them. But, these are different times.
Trump has taken the use of sanctions to a level that hasn't been seen before.
Putin is the master of parallel aggression. You take an action against Russia, he will
generally hit you back along some other vector.
In this case it was a direct confrontation to Trump's bringing the full weight of U.S.
financial dominance down on its rivals and allies, who are all heavily exposed to
Rusal's market position.
Russia is not out of the water with this situation which is why Oleg Deripaska, the majority
owner of Rusal and the one targeted by the Trump administration, is looking still to find ways
to satisfy the U.S.'s demands on this issue.
Putin's Pivot
But, don't think this isn't working to Putin's advantage as Deripaska is not one of his
supposed favored oligarchs. This report from Bloomberg spelled out the situation well back in
April.
As for Deripaska, he will get help from the Russian government again. {which he did, see
above} Rusal has warned that the sanctions might mean a default on a portion of its debt.
That's most likely to happen to its more than $1 billion in dollar-denominated debt. But, as
ever, the company's biggest creditors are Russian state banks, and the Kremlin will keep
Rusal solvent one way or another as it reorients toward Asian markets. It won't be a huge
headache for Putin: He's seen worse, including with Rusal during the financial crisis.
And that's the most important part.
Once the current positions are wound down and the aluminum market adjusts to the new reality
of U.S. hyper-aggression to restart an industry we really don't need (smelting aluminum?
really?) just to satisfy Trump's outdated views on trade (which they are MAGA-pedes) Rusal's
business will not be so U.S.-centric.
And therefore the world will become less exposed, over time, to the depredations of U.S.
financial attack. I told you before that China has responded to this by issuing new
yuan-denominated futures contracts for industrial metals.
Why do you think they did that?
Will it create pain in the short-term? Yes. Europe will experience even more of this as will
Asia.
Will a lot of companies fear being sanctioned and fined by the U.S. for doing business with
Rusal? Yes. It's happening now. Will this exacerbate underlying economic conditions in Europe?
Of course.
But, if Deripaska submits, like it looks like he will, then the aluminum market will calm
down and Trump's sanctions will look silly.
Sanctions Bite Both Ways
The net result will be more of the aluminum market will flow through the Yuan rather than
the dollar, neatly avoiding sanctions and any future threats. Because with the insanity caused
by the overnight chaos in April, any aluminum supplier/consumer will be wary of another such
edict from the naked Emperor in D.C.
And, as such, they will diversify the currencies they buy and sell aluminum in. It won't be
a sea change overnight. Those least exposed will jump ship first. Rusal will be one of the main
beneficiaries since Russian banks are already sanctioned.
But it will be a trend, that once started will gain steam.
China can and will tie convertibility of its futures contracts to gold through the Shanghai
exchange to allay worries about getting money out of the country.
Abusing your customers is never a winning marketplace strategy and that's exactly what
Trump's sanctions policy is doing, abusing customers of the dollar. Trust has been the dollar's
strongest attribute for a long time now and it is the primary reason why it has dominated trade
and reserves.
But there is a limit to how much your customers will take. And Trump is pushing well beyond
that limit. And when the benefits of using the dollar are eclipsed by the liabilities, people
will naturally shift away from it.
Look at the TIC chart above and note the total. This is a $6.3 trillion synthetic short
position against the dollar. He's inviting countries to dump treasuries to defend their
currencies as the dollar strengthens while shifting their primary materials buying to the
biggest rival's currency.
This is why Russia continues to run a very tight financial ship while it leads the charge
away from the dollar. It's inviting customers into the ruble with both a strong national
balance sheet and relatively higher interest rates. This has the U.S. fuming.
Putin has and will use future mini-crises like this to further clean up the rot left over
from the Yeltsin years, like Deripaska, while building a Russia insulated from future attacks
like this.
Remember, even the U.S. has limits. It cannot sanction people for refusing to trade in
dollars. Even the U.S. doesn't have that power. It can try but it will fail. New systems, new
banks, new institutions can always be created.
... " ... in the case of the insane sanctions on Oleg Deripaska and Russian Aluminum
giant, Rusal, back in April, we finally got some clarity as to how Russia can and will
respond to future events .. . " ...
... most recently, Trump had been focusing on protecting steel and "aluminum" on world
trading ... could there be an underlying reason behind these sanctions? ... who is Trump
really protecting here? ...
... let's follow the money ... these links might let us connect the (((dots))) ...
Should the London Metal Exchange allow Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Glencore to own
aluminium warehouses even as they trade the metal?
GOLDMAN'S NEW MONEY MACHINE: WAREHOUSES ) ...
The struggle for most Americans regarding this issue is the fact that the Ministry of
Truth has always told us "Russia Bad!" while "US Good!". The Ole good guy vs bad guy
paradigm. I grew up in the 80's and am very familiar with that paradigm. I am an American through
and through but our government has become the most corrupt bunch of whoring thieves on the
planet.
True Americans have awakened to realize the power of our corrupt government lies in
the dollar hegemony. True Americans hate it, and hate the power and control it wields in our
own lives. We see it at work around the world. We see DC squeeze our lives to subsidize it's
world empire. An empire is seeks to maintain for various reasons that are debated
regularly.
The rub comes when we see that the only force capable of standing up to this corrupt
empire is a country that we have been told all our lives is evil. Russia wasn't always the
communist soviet union.....and is no longer that today. But in the minds of many Americans
that is all that it will ever be. Russia has the resources, military, intelligence, and skill
to control it's own destiny. It has everything it needs to tell the US empire, "No!" I
respect that....admire that.....cheer that....and wish them success in their stand. For those
of us looking for a way to bust the evil cabal now running our own country, Russia's
rebellion of US dominance is a ray of hope. It's not that we don't love our own country or
want to be Russians, but we don't care about supporting a world empire that requires wars,
taxes, and a strategy that strip us of our individual sovereignty by contaminating our
country with people that don't belong here and will never think like an American.
People need to put aside their "fan-boy" biases, drop the blind loyalty, and start dealing
with reality. We are not rooting for Putin and Russia, rather we are rooting for the downfall
of thus evil banking cartel that is slowly killing us all and taking more and more of our
freedoms. To those of you that say that will cause pain and we STILL have the greatest
country on earth, I say, somethings are worth the pain.....and we can be a lot better. We
have got to change direction....and the sooner we get off this road of empire destruction,
the better.
Maybe it is because The Aluminum Company of America (formerly ALCOA now Arconic an others)
is going broke. Check out their stock price for the last 10 years or so. Are they still part
of the DOW Index? Bonehead move to include them years ago.
Trump is worth what, a couple of billion? And those assets are encumbered by a lot of debt
held by US banks. That does not an oligarch make. When it comes to US oligarchs, Trump is a
piker compared to the massive family trusts that can move markets and voting results.
Trump is worth exactly the debt that the Israeli Sheldon Adelson holds over him IIRC. Far from being independent he is owned by America's biggest parasite and enemy:
Israel.
The USA is drunk on power with their dollar as they see it as invincible. It will be their
own undoing. The world is eager and preparing to drop/run/destroy the dollar. One day they'll all lick
their wounds take their losses and forget the dollar completely.
The USA and Israel aka banksters will start WWIII to prove literally they will destroy the
world if need be instead of lose their power over mankind
The US will have to do one of the hardest things in the history of the nation. She'll have
to stop LYING to herself! All those recommending weaponization of the petrodollar, are
charlatans. The USA cannot get through restructuring via antagonism, that only tightens the
economic noose.
What is needed, is bankruptcy protection, via honest cooperation with the emergent
economic powers in the East. This comes with a price, retrenchment of imperium. This in turn,
requires sobriety that, the game while not completely lost, as in national decomposition, is
nevertheless, unwinnable, as in rebuilding can only follow retrenchment.
Now, US policy wonks must be imbibing some real potent hallucinogens, to be unable to see
what's right in front of their noses that, no matter the strategy, if it's not one of
cooperation, the game is forfeit! The only strategy that helps the US retain great power
status, is one whereby clear eyed, hard nosed assessment of assets and liabilities, are
carried out.
The East is helping the USA buy time, the exceptionalists are once again, squandering the
opportunity, just like they did in 91. They somehow believe the US military can change the
trajectory of events. This is not possible any longer except humanity signs up for
civilizational extinction.
To cut a long story short, it's time to declare mea culpa, and request a recalibration of
goals, objectives, tactics, and critically, strategy. The strategy going forward? Honest
cooperation to resolve issues that are creating global tensions, foremost amongst them, the
one where the West gets to live like kings, at the expense of billions. This is the major
issue, and it cannot be resolved without humility on the part of the West, and indemnity on
the part of victims.
Humanity will only move forward through forgiveness, which cannot be activated without
contrition.
If Russia is selling Treasuries, it may be ahead of the market selling to prevent losses
down the road. There is a shift happening not just with Russia as the long-standing bankers
like the Rothschilds, etc. have been also selling their UST holdings and moving the money to
Asia as per their reports for the last year.
The other thing to watch is the Vienna OPEC meeting later this month. The Saudis and
Russia have now setup a long-term partnership to control the Oil market, including
speculation on the markets as of today's press, so a discussion of abandoning the Petrodollar
may not be off the table as there are portions of that deal that have been announced as
secretive and this may be part of the plan.
"The 2008 financial crisis was the
consequence of a loosely regulated banking system
in which power was concentrated in the hands of too limited a cast of speculators,
"
Nomi Prins tell me. "And after the crisis, the way the US government and the Federal Reserve
dealt with this corrupt and criminal banking system was to give them a subsidy."
Such strong, withering analysis is, perhaps, unexpected from someone who has held senior roles
at Wall Street finance houses such as Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs. But Prins is no ordinary
former banker.
The US author and journalist left the financial services industry in 2001. She did so, in her
own words, "partly because life was too short", and
"partly out of disgust at how
citizens everywhere had become collateral damage, and later hostages, to the banking system".
Since then, Prins has chronicled the closed and often confusing world of high finance
through the 2008 crisis and beyond.
Her writing combines deep insider knowledge with
on-the-ground reporting with sharp, searing prose. Alongside countless articles for
New York
Times
,
Forbes
and
Fortune
, she has produced six books – including
Collusion:
how central bankers rigged the world
, which has just been published.
Her main target in the new work is "quantitative easing" – described by Prins as "a
conjuring trick" in which "a central bank manufactures electronic money, then injects it into
private banks and financial markets".
Over the last decade, she tells me when we meet in
London, "under the guise of QE, central bankers have massively overstepped their traditional
mandates, directing the flow of epic sums of fabricated money, without any checks or balances,
towards the private banking sector".
Since QE began, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, "the US Federal Reserve has produced a
massive $4.5 trillion of conjured money, out of a worldwide QE total of around $21 trillion", says
Prins. The combination of ultra-low interest rates and vast monetary expansion, she explains, has
caused "speculation to rage... much as a global casino would be abuzz if everyone gambled using
everyone else's money".
Much of this new spending power, though, has remained "inside the system", with banks
shoring up their balance sheets.
"So lending to ordinary firms and households has barely
grown as a result of QE," says Prins, "nor have wages or prosperity for most of the world's
population". Instead, "the banks have gone on an asset-buying spree", she explains, getting into
her stride, "with the vast flow of QE cash from central banks to private banks ensuring endless
opportunities for market manipulation and asset bubbles – driven by government support".
Prins describes "the power grab we've seen by the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank,
the Bank of Japan and other central banks".
Using QE, she argues, "these illusionists have
altered the nature of the financial system and orchestrated a
de facto
heist that has
enabled the most dominant banks and central bankers to run the world".
She says all this looking me straight in the eye, with the deadpan delivery, supreme confidence
and unflinching focus of the senior investment banker she was. But the words are those of an angry
and committed activist – someone who is absolutely determined to do what she can to reform global
finance, starting in her native country.
Nomi Prins deals in bold statements and fearless analysis. While often accused of hyperbole, her
deep research, financial expertise and former 'insider status' means only a fool would dismiss her.
She is just at home within academia as she is on the political front line – a regular on the
university lecture circuit, Prins was also a member of Senator Bernie Sanders' team of economic
experts, advising on central bank reform. Yet, such is her reputation that she commands a place
among those she chides – and is regularly consulted, formally and informally, by senior officials
at the Fed, the ECB and other major central banks.
Surveying the history of the response to the 2008 financial crisis, Prins tells me that explicit
bank bailouts were only a small part of the story. "First, there was the $700bn package agreed in
Congress to save the US banks that caused the crisis," she says.
"But the real bailout
was the trillions of dollars of QE produced by the Fed – a massive subsidy to banks and financial
markets, that has created an enormous bubble, a subsidy agreed by unelected officials and barely
debated or remarked upon."
After initiating QE in late 2008, the Fed then "exported the idea – and that required the
collusion of other major central banks", Prins argues. She points out that even though the Fed and
the Bank of England have currently stopped doing QE, new money amounting to hundreds of billions of
dollars a month is still being pumped out by central banks elsewhere, not least the ECB and the
Bank of Japan.
"When the asset bubble pops, the fragile financial system and the broader
economic environment could be thrown into deep depression and turmoil,"
she says.
"That's why the QE baton has been passed from the US to other nations, and why the
central banks are so desperate to collude."
I put to Prins the conventional wisdom: there was no alternative to QE, and without it, the
global banking system would have collapsed in 2008, causing untold economic and political damage.
While she accepts there was a need for immediate post-crisis action, she argues the time for
emergency measures has now long since passed. "If financial markets so much as wobble, the world's
leading central banks, between them, do more QE," she says. "The insiders maintain the status quo
of subsidies to the financial system – but there is no world war, aliens are not invading our
planet, this is totally unjustified."
Prins says that
QE has been "a massive deceit and a huge factor in driving inequality
– a dedicated effort by institutions with the ability to create money, deciding that it doesn't go
to ordinary people". While it was sold "as a massive trickle-down programme, helping the incomes of
regular households, the benefits have been focused at the very top".
Stock markets have benefitted, she acknowledges, "but a mere 10% of Americans own 85% of the
market". Prins also argues that low interest rates have harmed most Americans.
"We need
to normalise the rate environment, so ordinary people get some kind of return on their pensions and
savings,"
she says.
QE and low rates, says Prins, have also caused "a debt explosion" – as not only have governments
taken on more borrowing but financial institutions have too, keen to boost the scale of their
investments in QE-driven markets that look like a one-way bet. US government debt has soared from
$9 trillion to over $20 trillion since the financial crisis, Prins observes. "And public and
private debt combined amount to a staggering 225% of global GDP – much of it accumulated since the
financial crisis," she says.
"The next financial crisis will be sparked by a debt failure somewhere – then
this QE
bubble will pop very quickly,"
Prins predicts. "And
when the new crisis comes,
rates are already low and we have little in the way of fiscal ammunition, so mitigation will be
very tough – and it will be ordinary people who suffer the most".
In response to the financial crisis, Prins maintains it would have been far cheaper and more
effective for the state to intervene directly, providing explicit assistance to cash-strapped
householders struggling to service the distressed mortgages at the heart of the crisis. "There was
half a trillion dollars of sub-prime mortgages across the US in 2008," she recalls. "You could have
bought up these properties, or just temporarily covered the loans," she says. "That would have cost
much less than half a trillion, and would also have helped the banks by turning their junk assets
into performing loans."
Prins says the "banks and central banks together" instead concocted QE. "We've allowed a
grotesque $21 trillion global subsidy which has seen the bankers not only avoid punishment for the
huge mess they created, but then entrench their financial advantage even more."
What we need, she says, is "better regulation" – in particular, a return to the "Glass-Steagall
environment where investment banks can't leverage their balance sheets by so much and rely on
government support". Since the Depression-era separation between risky investment banking and
run-of-the-mill commercial banking was repealed by the Clinton administration in 1997, "a financial
crisis was unavoidable", she says.
"As long as the deposits of ordinary people and
companies can be used by investment bankers as fodder for reckless speculation, in the knowledge
those deposits are backed by the state, the world is at risk."
Prins is dismayed at how easily on-going QE, continuing years after the financial crisis, has
been accepted by the political and media classes. "There is joint approval across the middle of the
left-right spectrum," she says.
"The economics profession and almost all commentators
don't seem to care that this money is completely unaccountable and untracked – and has caused an
enormous bubble."
The reason, she observes, is that contemplating the end of QE is
too difficult. "The unwind will cause pain and could result in a meltdown, as the markets and the
debt mountain collapse."
In
Collusion
, Prins takes us on a whistle-stop tour of global finance, describing how
the leaders of the Banco de México tried to navigate their country's complicated relationship with
the Fed and how Brazil has led the charge in challenging the dollar's all-important "reserve
currency status".
The
book goes to China
, where we learn how Beijing is using "dark money" to upend dollar-hegemony,
helping to drive the country's ascent as a global superpower.
We read how Europe's response to the financial crisis has heightened tension between the ECB and
Germany – fuelling intra-EU resentments that have fuelled populism and help explain Brexit. Prins
describes how
Japan "leverages the rivalry between the US and China", while embarking on
"the most ambitious money-conjuring scheme to date".
But it is in the US where the bulk of the narrative is set and it is there the arguments Prins
makes will be most keenly read. The Federal Reserve has just lifted interest rates by a quarter
point, and signalled that two more increases are likely in 2018. As the world's most important
central bank continues the long, gradual march away from emergency measures, and with the ECB also
committed soon to ending QE, the warnings in this important book about extent of today's asset
price bubbles, and the role central banks have played in causing them, are about to be severely
tested.
"What we've witnessed, since 2008, is the unbridled ability of the so-called
people at the top to implement socialism for the banks,"
Prins tells me.
"If anyone had said we are going to give $21 trillion to the global banking sector, it
would never have happened – so we've had a backdoor process instead, under the pretense it would
help ordinary people."
Leaning forward for the first time, Prins ups the ante. "Well, real people don't believe that –
and they'll believe it even less as and when we have another crash, a crash off the back of ten
years of emergency measures that were supposed to fix the system."
"The issue isn't whether this money-conjuring game can continue," she says as she prepares to
leave. "The issue is that central banks have no plan B in the event of another crisis – and that's
going to create an even more massively negative view among ordinary people towards those who see
themselves as elites."
Listen to Liam Halligan's interview with Nomi Prins here:
One of her obfuscations is the concentrating on "asset bubbles" rather
than the fact that these Banksters are obtaining ownership of the worlds
real assets without having to pay for them. As if they didn't have
enough power.
Ownership of corporations (and control of them), is one
of the subjects carefully avoided by the Rotschild media machine.
There is only one group of people who it is illegal to question in a
good number of ethnic European countries.
Prins describes "the power grab we've seen by the US Federal Reserve,
the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and other central
banks".
Replace "....the US Federal Reserve, the European Central
Bank, the Bank of Japan and other central banks" with "....the
Rothschild Crime Family" would be a more appropriate comment.
The Rothschild Crime Family own and control every central bank on
the planet except three, Iran, North Korea and Cuba, lending money at
interest to governments everywhere. Do you have debt, a home loan, a
car loan, student debt, credit card debt?! What about the debt your
Federal, State and Local governments have on behalf of you, your
children and grand-children? Just imagine that over 50% of all that
debt is owed and the interest continually paid to the Rothschild clan
and their tight knit group of international bankers. Do you feel good
about yourself still, being nothing more than a serf to them? Money
makes money, and in this case the biggest crime syndicate that will
ever exist, one that has the military of various countries continuing
their protection racket for them as well as IRS type institutions
doing their debt collecting, will never be satisfied until they have
everything!
Alternative thinking would suggest that Prins is spot on !
The reason she gets MSM 'coverage' is because she has not
revealed the true enormity of it !
The scenario's she suggests have definitely played out !
Although, she is withholding the TRUE scale of it - it's
MASSIVE !
I just received her new book "Collusion: how the central bankers rigged the
world" through special order with my library. She is by far the best writer on
central banks and the financial crisis. Her "It Takes a Pillage" is superb and
easily followed. The problem is, hardly anyone outside of the few who care (or
know) read it.
A 1950s outlook repeated for 6 books. We are not going anywhere near 20th Century
anything and this is populist. Glass-Steagall is DEAD but promoting its return
sells!
Now the money the Fed creates is "Outside Money" injected to the banking
system which creates the "Inside Money" that usually finances the economy. The
INTENTION of the "Outside Money" being injected into the banking system is to
prevent the banking system from dying after which it would no longer be able to
create the "Inside Money" you borrow.
The Fed is NOT going to send individual citizens their mortgage payments. This
is also populist tripe.
If this were to be done Congress would have to legislate it and the Fed would
assist in arranging the financing for such a deficit.
The Congress DOES send trillions to all the people through various transfer
and entitlement programs and this coming year will be 2.8T from the federal level
alone as well as arranging all the student and mortgage loans.
As long as it is taken to be entertainment any of this is fine. Oh yeah, NO
GOLD Standard, Bimetal money, or any sort of commodity currency EVER again.
"... I encountered a wonderful concept the other day on the Keiser Report, where they said in passing that the great irony of the Hegemon's position was that it couldn't use its massive financial power because whenever it did, it simply forced alternatives to arise. ..."
"... This is why every financial move by Trump is producing the opposite result. Another ZH article says that the Russian sell-off of US Treasuries was a move to cover Rusal and the sanctions placed on its former CEO, Deripaska. Mr. Trump Attacks Aluminum, Russia Attacks The Debt . ..."
"... Every time the US flaunts its Dollar supremacy, it pushes customers away from the Dollar. ..."
"... The US has power left in the financial sector, but can't use it. The US has no power left in the military area, and cannot show it. Syria, Korea, the theaters are growing where the US has had to step down. ..."
"... Even the fog of propaganda is wearing increasingly thin. The US State Department just issued a warning to its people about traveling to Russia. It's risky, they say. But ticket sales for the World Cup are up by 25% from the US, the largest foreign customer ..."
The take away quote:
"
"What we've witnessed, since 2008, is the unbridled ability of the so-called people at the top to implement socialism for the
banks," Prins tells me. "If anyone had said we are going to give $21 trillion to the global banking sector, it would never have
happened – so we've had a backdoor process instead, under the pretense it would help ordinary people."
Excellent article, thanks for the link. Nomi knows all this stuff, and she's right. And Liam Halligan, a financial journalist
I greatly respect, wrote the article. Recommended.
~~
I encountered a wonderful concept the other day on the Keiser Report, where they said in passing that the great irony of the
Hegemon's position was that it couldn't use its massive financial power because whenever it did, it simply forced alternatives
to arise.
This is why every financial move by Trump is producing the opposite result. Another ZH article says that the Russian sell-off
of US Treasuries was a move to cover Rusal and the sanctions placed on its former CEO, Deripaska.
Mr. Trump Attacks
Aluminum, Russia Attacks The Debt .
The tariffs on aluminum compelled the Chinese to create a Yuan-denominated futures contract
on industrial metals - convertible to gold at Shanghai, of course. The instability of the overnight tariffs created a more enduring
stability than before, resting on gold, which satisfies concerns about transfers between nations.
Every time the US flaunts its Dollar supremacy, it pushes customers away from the Dollar.
~~
But it's not just Trump, nor just the financial markets. It's every theater and every plane of activity. Every use of bullying,
drives former allies away. Every posture of aggression runs the supreme risk that the US military will be exposed as ineffective,
and if that happens, the Pentagon is finished, and the generals know it.
The US has power left in the financial sector, but can't use it. The US has no power left in the military area, and cannot
show it. Syria, Korea, the theaters are growing where the US has had to step down.
Even the fog of propaganda is wearing increasingly thin. The US State Department just issued a warning to its people about
traveling to Russia. It's risky, they say. But ticket sales for the World Cup are up by 25% from the US, the largest foreign customer.
I'll have to stop, but fortunately, the examples go on and on.
Mate would have got the idea from Stephen Cohen, Russia expert, Nation contributor and husband of the Nation editor. But Cohen
has certainly got it from Alt-media - here or similar...
Today, June 16, is the 85th anniversary of the signing of the Banking Act of 1933, otherwise
known as the Glass Steagall Act. When President Franklin Roosevelt signed Glass Steagall into
law, he set off a 66 year epoch of relatively sound banking, during which time there was no big
financial crash, as occurred in 1929 and again, after Glass Steagall's repeal, in 2008. Under
Glass Steagall, commercial depository banks were totally separated from investment banks.
Later, insurance companies were also cut off from any ties to commercial banks. During the same
wave of early New Deal legislation, the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was
established, insuring commercial bank deposits and successfully deterring bank panics.
The repeal of Glass Steagall was a long-standing priority for Wall Street. In 1984, JP
Morgan Bank launched an internal study on how to repeal Glass Steagall. That study, "Rethinking
Glass Steagall," proposed a war of attrition against the principle of complete bank separation.
The war was launched in 1987, with the appointment of Alan Greenspan as the new Chairman of the
Federal Reserve. Greenspan had been a partner at JP Morgan and had chaired the study group
which devised the war plan against Glass Steagall. As Fed Chairman, Greenspan used his
discretionary powers to increase the amount that commercial banks to lend to investment
institutions. By the mid-1990s, enforcement of Glass Steagall had eroded. Citibank at that
point moved to purchase both an investment bank and an insurance company, in violation of Glass
Steagall restrictions. That set the clock going to a two-year deadline. Citi had to either
divest of the purchases or Glass Steagall had to be repealed.
Wall Street poured $300 million into a lobbying campaign to kill Glass Steagall. In 1999,
both Houses of Congress passed the Gramm Leach Bliley bill, killing Glass Steagall. For the
first time in 66 years, commercial banks could merge with investment banks and insurance
companies. It was only a matter of time before the investment banking divisions devoured the
commercial bank deposits and directed them into a speculative binge beyond all previous
financial bubbles. When Lehman Brothers went under in 2008, the system crashedEnemies of Glass
Steagall argued that Lehman Brothers was not a commercial bank and so the repeal of Glass
Steagall had no causal relationship with the financial crisis. Not so. It was the repeal of
Glass Steagall that allowed commercial banks to pour money into the gambling casino--including
into Lehman BrothersAn article today in The Guardian by US correspondent Ganesh Sitaraman noted
that there is renewed interest in Glass Steagall today--across the political spectrum. He noted
that progressive Democrats have been pushing reinstating of Glass Steagall for years. It was
included in the Republican Party platform in 2016. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There
are bills to reinstate Glass Steagall in both Houses of Congress and they are bipartisan bills.
Even candidate Donald Trump called for the reinstatement of Glass Steagall, before he was
gagged by Wall Street cabinet officials like Steven Mnuchin and Gary CohenThe IMF, the Bank for
International Settlements, the Federal Reserve and Bloomberg News are all warning that we are
headed for another major financial "correction" sometime soon. They point to the consequences
of a decade of post-2008 quantitative easing and zero interest rates, which led to a 63 percent
jump in corporate bonds. The median bond rating today is BBB- just one rung above junk bond
status, and S&P Global estimates that more than 25 percent of all corporations can be
categorized as "zombies" because the amount they must spend servicing their corporate debt is
greater than their cash flow.
There is a growing consensus that we are again headed for a big financial shock. Wouldn't it
be wise to move to insulate the commercial banking sector from another fiasco before the next
crisis? Are the White House and Congress ready to act or are we heading blindly to a replay of
2008?
Sirs;
The 'conventional' wisdom is that Franklin Roosevelt saved Capitalism from itself in the
1930s'. Glass Steagall was a big part of that 'intervention' to save the self destructive
system. When the financial sector managed to have the Glass Steagall law removed, it
might as well have said, like any addict; "I can control myself. I can stop any time I
want." Any of us who have had dealings with addictive personalities knows the folly of
this claim. Well, absent Glass Steagall, the financial sector tried to commit suicide in
2007-2008. The Fed and others managed to revive the moribund sector through QE to
infinity. Now it's going to happen again. This time, let the banks die. If you want,
apply true capitalism and replace the errant institutions with new ones. Then regulate
the new actors. Keep the bottle out of the addicts reach.
I find Harper's account very clear and accurate as someone who paid close attention
(watched in horror) from the time Clinton signed the damned thing (Gramm Leach Bliley)
till the inevitable taxpayer bailout of our worldwide commercial economy by indemnifying
the investment banks against their unlimited greedy speculative depredations.
The key point is that without commercial banking, business activity is not possible
and would essentially cease. If, on the other hand, all investment banking, no matter how
big, were to blow up, collapse, and its minions be hunted down by wolves, the world would
feel the shock but soon turn to other forms of capital formation.
However, without Glass Steagall, commercial banks and investment banks become
inextricably intertwined, and then "let the banks fail" kills both the cancer and the
patient. "Too big to fail" is a misnomer; it's not the size but the function that
matters, and until commercial banks (and insurers) are again separated from investment
banking, the investment banksters have us by the short ones, with a knife to our throat
and a suicide vest around our families.
I got this from Wikipedia, does anybody know if it is correct?
n 1977, Greenspan obtained a Ph.D. in economics from New York University. His
dissertation is not available from the university[17] since it was removed at Greenspan's
request in 1987, when he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. In April 2008,
however, Barron's obtained a copy and notes that it includes "a discussion of soaring
housing prices and their effect on consumer spending; it even anticipates a bursting
housing bubble".[18
Harper, do you have any references for assertions such as the JPM internal study, the
amount spent on lobbying and Greenspan's role? It's not that I find them implausible.
Just the opposite, in fact. But solid references help in convincing others.
Im Bundestag kämpfen Merkel und ihre Treuesten derweil darum, ihre
Anti-Deutschland-Politik unter anderem gegen die CSU durchzusetzen -- sogar in der CDU gibt
es erste Mutige, die sich daran erinnern, wer sie bezahlt und wem sie eigentlich verpflichtet
sind.
Rough translation:
" In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German
policy against the CSU -- even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who
that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations. "
There are German rumours that Merkel will fall this week.
Historians from time to time write how curious it is that apparently unrelated events in
different parts of the world change history.
I wonder if the Trump election with the realisation, long overdue, in Germany, that the
migrants are a burden in stead of a contribution to the economy, may combine to Merkel's
fall,in her wake maybe the implosion of the EU, and the end of the euro.
It was Merkel who prevented Greece leaving the euro.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) revealed that in late September 2016,
"Good FBI agents" stepped forward as whistleblowers to tell them about additional Hillary Clinton
emails "sitting" on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
"I've never actually said this before," said Nunes.
"
We had whistleblowers that came to us in late September of 2016 who talked to us about
this laptop sitting up in New York that had additional emails on it."
In other words,
the New York FBI "rebelled"
- as Rudy Giuliani puts it - which former FBI
Director James Comey tried to quash,
twice
.
The FBI sat on the revelation that previously unknown emails from Hillary Clinton's
private server were recovered on the laptop of sex-crimes convict Anthony Weiner for just under
a month, according to a review by the Department of Justice's Inspector General.
The stated rationale was to prioritize the Russia investigation, which was a decision made by
Peter Strzok,
a top FBI agent involved in both investigations and who texted his lover
that he would "stop" Donald Trump from becoming president
. -
Daily
Caller
Appearing Friday on
Fox and Friends
, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said that FBI agents in the New York
office "rebelled" and "had a revolution" which Comey could not keep quiet - forcing him to reopen
the Clinton email investigation.
"
The agents in the NY office - we all know this, rebelled. They had a revolution.
And
Comey made two attempts to quiet them down and then realized "I can't do
that, I'm gonna look terrible here.
If she gets elected I'll look terrible, if she
doesn't.." -Rudy Giuliani
Recall that the DOJ Inspector General found that Andrew McCabe lied about
leaking a
self-serving story to Devlin Barrett of the
Wall Street
Journal
that he was not stalling (or "slow walking") the Hillary Clinton email
investigation
at a time in which McCabe had come under fire for his wife taking a
$467,500 campaign contribution
from Clinton
proxy
pal, Terry McAuliffe.
Last month we reported
that "rank and file" FBI agents want Congress to subpoena them
so that they can step forward and reveal dirt on Comey and McCabe
, reports the
Daily
Caller
, citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova.
"
There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by
[James] Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs
like [John] Brennan
–who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of
political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe
DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday.
"
They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify
." -Joe
diGenova
DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent him
in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside
due
to conflicts
, has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a
counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington
Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by
The Caller
.
These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower
,
since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official
explained to TheDC.
More than just Hillary's emails...
The FBI's whistleblowers didn't stop Weiner's laptop... In March of 2017, House Speaker Paul
Ryan said that Rep. Nunes revealed to him that a "whistleblower type person" had stepped forward
with information
about the surveillance of the Trump campaign
.
"He had told me that a whistleblower type person had given him some information that was new,
that spoke to the last administration and part of this investigation," Ryan said in late March.
"What Chairman Nunes said was he came into possession of new information he thought was valuable
to this investigation and he was going to go and inform people about it."
The week before Ryan made these statements,
Nunes revealed that an unidentified source
showed him evidence that the U.S. intelligence community "incidentally surveilled" Trump's
transition team
before inauguration day.
Of course, we now know it goes much, much deeper. As Rudy Giuliani also said on Friday:
Let's look at it this way ...
Peter Strzok was running the Hillary investigation.
That's a total fix
. That's a closed-book now, total fix.
Comey should go to
jail for that. And Strzok.
But then what does Comey do?
He takes Strzok -
who wanted to get Trump in any way possible - he puts him in charge of the Russia investigation
.
How come they're not finding any evidence of collusion?
Because
the President
didn't do anything wrong and
he's being investigated corruptly.
This is what you get under imperium, under a Republic, it's almost
impossible! Patriots will stand up, and answer to their pedigree but under
imperium, integrity is the first virtue to wither, after that the other
virtues quickly atrophy.
Let us my friends, determine with every fiber of
our being, fight to RESTORE THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC!!!...
Looking retrospectively I always thought that it was uncanny how the Trump
campaign parted with Carter Page and then Paul Manafort,brought in Kellyanne
Conway. They seemed to be dodging bullets.
99% are not cops, most wouldn't even make it as a cop. They are
lawyers, accountants, statisticians, analysts and scientists with
a basic gun qualification. They have a lot of cool forensic things
at their disposal and in some instances can be helpful in a major
investigation. Real cops (like the NYPD investigators that caught
the Weiner laptop fiasco and preserved the evidence) don't need
the FBI other than to access some of their whiz-bang shit.
They'll talk for hours over a two minute task. The rest in
higher echelons is politics, dirty politics.
That said. My biggest complaint is the lack of action taken by
the 'concerned agents'. Horseshit, cops get arrested 'in house'
for stupid shit they've done and the info doesn't get printed
because in local areas it can ruin families. This by no means
infers light treatment, for example DUI (misdemeanor level in CA)
will get you all the aspects of a first DUI that any citizen gets,
plus 30-60 days off with no pay, a 'work improvement contract' for
a year or two, and a stint in a dry out center. You will possibly
keep your job. Repeat offense, fired. Embezzlement, fires, lying
in an investigation, fired with a Brady Jacket.
Domestic Violence, fired. The Thin Blue Line is just that,
'thin'. If you think the old days of saying nothing still exists
or a partner will cover you, your not living in modern times. No
one will risk their pension for your sorry ass. You'll be advised
by old dogs, don't be a dumbass, dumbass.
The Democratic Party was founded in 1828. The Republican Party was founded in 1854.
Neither party serves the people. Both parties serve only themselves. They have morphed into
two sides of the same neoliberal coin. The primary reason Trump won the election was the
simple. Even though he ran on the Republican ticket, he was not a Republican. He was the best
choice open to the populist. Whether he is a populist or not does not matter. What matters is
that people want an America first, Populist Party. We are tired of the wars. We are tired of
the government. And, we are tired of the neocons...
"Ha ha ha ha ha the party of losers and users is OVER"
Instead of worrying who will fill the void, they should focus on the void of their ways.
As Nietzsche said, " And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. "
It's no wonder they are consuming themselves.
The people are starting to see through the lower end of their BS. Oddly enough, it's
figuring out the low end stuff that will create the most rage. Zombie awakening.
As for Obama, I think he realizes what's going on and probably wants no part of it.
Biggest rallies in US presidential history were for Bernie Sanders who ran as a Democrat.
Dems don't want him because they don't want to get off the corporate lobbyist gravytrain.
They would rather lose the presidency.
The republicans are the same. Crooks. All this bullshit on Zero Hedge comments about one
being better than the other is simpleton thinking.
the choice will always be between a douche and a turd sandwich.
the difference between trumps faults and clintons faults was a chasm.
if there ever was a leader for either party that halved the pentagon budget by making it
"smart", eliminating waste, repatriating troops, closing overseas bases AND came up with a
plan to make QUALITY portable and fungible across the country, AND found a way to educate
rather than indoctrinate children AND found a way to repay the national debt whilst funding
medicare/medicaid (both bankrupt) AND found a way to get the federal government completely
out of the housing market (get rid of fraudie and funny and the FHA) and, etc etc.. the
country would be back on track.
clinton wanted the opposite of all that, trump wants less of it and at least understands
what a fucking pain in the ass federal involvement in anything actually is.
Following a Monday report that President Obama is
"secretly" meeting
with top Democratic contenders for the 2020 election,
The
Hill
notes that desperate Democrats beset with
Clinton fatigue
are freaking out over the fact that the much "blue wave" appears to be
crashing
on the rocks
, and there's nobody around to salvage the party ahead of midterms and the 2020
election.
"
There's f---ing no one else
," one frustrated Democratic strategist said. "
Bill
Clinton is toxic, [former President] Carter is too old, and there's no one else around for miles
."
-
The
Hill
In the hopes of reinvigorating the DNC (of which up to 40 state chapters stand accused of
funneling up to $84 million
to the Clinton campaign), downtrodden dems are hoping that Obama
will get off the sidelines and help rally support.
"
He's been way too quiet
," said one longtime Obama bundler who rarely
criticizes the former president, according to
The Hill
. "
There are a lot of people who think he's played too little a role
or almost no role
in endorsing or fundraising and
he's done jack shit
in
getting people to donate to the party.
"
After the GOP made sweeping gains in the 2016 election, the DNC was left in disarray - and
anyone who might be able to lead the party, be it Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, may run in 2020.
Bernie Sanders is of course out because he may run
and
he's not a Democrat.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was among five possible contenders for the Democratic crown
attending the "We the People" conference in Washington on Wednesday. He received the loudest
applause and heard chants of "Bernie."
But he can't play the elder role for the party, both because he may run for president
and because he's not a Democrat.
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), two other possibilities,
have mass followings but also may join the 2020 race.
-
The
Hill
That leaves the spotlight squarely on Barrack Hussein Obama - whose lack of endorsements during
the primary season and general absence has frustrated Democrats.
Bill Clinton, who is more radioactive than ever after making ill-advised comments over "what you
can do to somebody against their will," has endorsed several candidates since leaving office, yet
Obama has declined to do the same thus far.
"You have all these people running for office, some of them against other Democrats, and
his strategy has been to not endorse anyone and that's what's been so f---ing ridiculous because
not only are you not helping them, you're hurting them
," said the bundler.
Former aides and Democratic strategists said Obama has sought to maintain a lower profile not
only for his party to find new life, but also to avoid playing a foil to President Trump and
Republicans.
A source close to Obama said the former president is looking forward to hitting the campaign
trail, fundraising and issuing more endorsements closer to the midterms. But the source added
that
injecting himself into day-to-day politics would do the Democratic Party a
disservice by making it more difficult for other Democratic voices to rise to prominence.
-
The
Hill
Others say that Obama has remained the unofficial leader of the Democratic Party since leaving
office.
"He always wanted to help, without a doubt. He cares tremendously about our country and our
party. But I think he always intended to be a little more on the sidelines than he's been," said
one former Obama aide. "I think he realizes he is needed and needed badly."
Former Obama aides say that the ex-President is unsettled by policies flowing from the Trump
administration, along with the "tone and tenor" of the White House (but not enough to aggressively
help active Democrats fight, apparently).
According to Democratic strategist David Wade: "
It's certainly not the post-presidency
he might've preferred.
"
Maybe Obama is just having a good time hanging out?
The Neo-cons, excuse me Democrats better get moving. (its so hard to
tell them apart these days) The clock is ticking, November is coming
and more reports showing criminal behavior are on the way.
~"Many of you impatient
homos are whining about no arrests
or indictments have been made yet.
When will it happen? I'll tell you:
Early October."~
Bingo.
The dems have another problem and
appear too stupid to focus on it.
They apparently much rather worry
about having a figurehead to lead
them, but their real problem is
much, much larger. Simply put, they
have no message, save "Hate
Trump!!!" What exactly do they
promise voters these days? Trump
impeachment as an economic program?
Also curious is the fact they
want no part of Hillary. Do they
admit she's as tainted as a leper?
The problem with that will be people
will see through it as cheap,
partisan electioneering. The result
will be an EASIER time to motivate
Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts.
There's as much chance of an
implosion of Democrats in 2018 as
there were back in 2006 when the GOP
was nearly blasted out of existence
then too. Remember how all the
predictions about the imminent doom
of the GOP were front and centre?
Journalists are so lazy, they're
just using Liquid Paper to
erase "Republican" to "Democrat" and
change the date from stuff they
wrote back in 2006.
Doesn't matter if Republicans or
Democrats win. In the end, everyone
else simply loses. How much you
lose is proportional to the distance
from the party elite you actually
are.
Rumors about the death of the US global neoliberal empire are probably slightly exaggerated.
Trump did damaged it, but the neoliberal system proved to be really resilient in 2008 and might
prove this again.
Notable quotes:
"... The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader. ..."
"... However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family. ..."
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition. ..."
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white
men), and the working class is languishing. It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are
a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way,
profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them
that are being exploited.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world
in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and
spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey
no argument there!
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.
India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places)
are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other
vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those
respective lands. Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other
places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their
countries are reduced to shitholes.
If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India,
then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in
America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.
As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like
Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the
typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi
Arabia, respectively.
The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal
hatred.
It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.
It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from
the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like
the last Zio-century.
That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that
gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation
behind the wars.
The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of
pure, raw, insatiable greed.
Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.
The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two
pillars of Satanic iniquity.
I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But
the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.
This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet
look at how they abase themselves
Found an interesting article about some developments with Seth
Rich. Hard to make sense of. I noticed the DNC created a tiny
plaque above a crappy bike rack for him. They don't want anybody
to remember him. Probably Hillary's idea.
Seth uploaded the files into a DropBox (per Sy Hersh) and
also may have given others the password to it. He was trying
to make sure that the information got out. He very likely also
asked that he never be named as the leaker, for obvious
reasons.
His family could possibly confirm that he was the leaker if
they knew at the time, though I'm sure that they were heavily
pressured to do otherwise as soon as Seth Rich was murdered.
They would have simply been given a choice along with some
thinly veiled threats.
Bernie sold his mooing cow followers out last time. The DNC will make
him an offer he can't refuse. Biden is a tit grabbing corrupt
cartoon. I say Crusty the clown has a good chance. Do it for the
children!
...Robert Mueller, who was Director of the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4,
2013. In those 12 years as Director, he served as Obama's FBI Director for 5 years, from Jan.
2009 until Sept. 2013. "President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term
a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."
He knows where every unconstitutional skeleton in both Baby Bush and Barack Obama's is
buried...
Democrats can lament all they want, but they did have a very good
candidate that they allowed to be thrown under the bus. That was Bernie
Sanders. Despite his "socialist" leanings, (for you conservatives), he
was really fresh blood to the Democratic party. And even though Jimmy
Carter is old, he has a very good working mind, better than all that are
currently in the Democratic party. Clinton turned the Democratic party
into a Mafia organization, taking orders from her, paving the way for
her, knocking off anyone that looked like potential trouble, like Seth Rich, John Ashe, Joe Montano, Victor Thorn, and Shawn Lucas. All five of
these guys died within 6 weeks of each other. Strange? Not if you are
operating an old style mafia organization. Democrats need to resign the
party, and form something new, that has fresh ideas, and people who are
not there for self-coronations. The most honest democrat you have left
is Jimmy Carter. Democrats are not honest today.
They need to purge the leadership of the DNC - Perez, Clinton and the
gang, they are the ones that shoved Hillary Clinton down Democrats
throats instead letting Bernie Sanders, the real nominee, win the
nomination. The DNC fucked over themselves, no one else is to blame.
Howard Dean is the one that got Obama elected the first time. From 2005
to 2009, he headed the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and
successfully implemented the 50 State Strategy, which aimed for
Democrats to be competitive in places considered Republican-dominated
territory. As a result, during the midterms in 2006, Democrats won the
House back and gained seats in the Senate. In 2008 Barack Obama also
used the same strategy to win his presidential bid.
Just like the DNC and Democratic bourgeoise fucked over Bernie, they
fucked over Howard Dean. Obama didn't select Howard Dean for his cabinet
for Secretary of Health and Human Services - even though he was a
successful governor, is a medical doctor, and was one of the main
reasons Obama won in 2008.
Obama has always been about himself. I mean who publishes a memoir about
yourself when you're just a nobody? Even Obama knows a loser when he
sees one...the Democratic Party. He did more for the Republican Party
than any Republican could ever do. One of the Greatest Presidents in my
lifetime for the conservative movement.
The Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place. The result of
losing 1000s of seats nationwide since 2010 means you've got no farm
system to develop politicians/leaders. It's no different than any sports
franchise. The successful ones have a deep bench and prospects to knock
off old, overpaid, underachieving veterans. If the Dems trot out Obama,
he will be a death sentence for the Dems' chances in November. Guy is
hated by almost everyone. Don't believe the approval ratings from CNN.
He got more popular towards the end when people realized he was finally
leaving.
Obama and the Clinton's have DESTROYED the Democrat party!!! Leaders of
the current Democratic party apparatchik, Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff,
et al
, are fucking idiots!!! I see a Red tsunami wave for the
mid-term election!
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... JRL promoted a recent Kirchick piece: http://russialist.org/newswatch-the-soviet-roots-of-invoking-fears-about-world-war-iii-brookings-james-kirchick/ The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.) ..."
"... A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of "lazy". ..."
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. ..."
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
"... Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. ..."
"... The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. ..."
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along! What a clever little schemer he was! Pretending
all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the
neocons to his own advantage! So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were
being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along
who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal
aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of
working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and
others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel - at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition. The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going
on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education
system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of
persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM.
Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our
Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I
recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug
addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy
mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's
wrong with the coverage.
Regarding this excerpt:
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist
and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick:
The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening
ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim
immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a
subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to
reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than
attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable:
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage,
across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros
Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with
present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has
transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of
"lazy".
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body
politic is, this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it
wouldn't have been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a
massive corruption in the highest echelons of power.
Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional
and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. The crisis is systemic and Jews
are only one, however important, part of that. In the end, Bolton is a practicing Lutheran
but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this in purely psychiatric terms --
he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have suspicion about what some of
those are. Just an example.
Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of
mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money.
Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but
they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum
paid to do the hatched job.
The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against
Russia. The greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who
wanted to loot the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea,
China, and Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended
loot.
The democrats have a large stable of brilliant and formidable possible candidates any of
which could lead the party to greatness
Hillary Clinton, Slick Willie, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Mark Zuckerburg,
Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Robert DeNiro, Oprah, Michelle Hussein Obama, Elizabeth (
Pococahontas)Warren , Madonna, Cher, Bernie Sanders , all the CNN and MSNBC personalities,
Chris Matthews, Bruce Jenner, Colin Kapernic, Gov Jerry moonbeam Brown, and that's just to
name a few. There is an abundance of talent , not to mention character and honesty.
"... Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted. ..."
James Comey once
described his position in the Clinton investigation as being the victim of a "500-year flood."
The point of the analogy was that he was unwittingly carried away by events rather than
directly causing much of the damage to the FBI. His "500-year flood" just collided with the
500-page report of
the Justice Department inspector general (IG) Michael Horowitz.
The IG sinks Comey's narrative with a finding that he "deviated" from Justice Department
rules and acted in open insubordination.
Rather than portraying Comey as carried away by his
biblical flood, the report finds that he was the destructive force behind the controversy. The
import of the report can be summed up in Comeyesque terms as the distinction between flotsam
and jetsam. Comey portrayed the broken rules as mere flotsam, or debris that floats away after
a shipwreck. The IG report suggests that this was really a case of jetsam, or rules
intentionally tossed over the side by Comey to lighten his load. Comey's jetsam included rules
protecting the integrity and professionalism of his agency, as represented by his public
comments on the Clinton investigation.
The IG report concludes, "While we did not find that these decisions were the result of
political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and
dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of
the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice."
The report will leave many unsatisfied and undeterred. Comey went from a persona non grata
to a patron saint for many Clinton supporters. Comey, who has made millions of dollars with a
tell-all book portraying himself as the paragon of "ethical leadership," continues to maintain
that he would take precisely the same actions again.
Ironically, Comey, fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , former FBI agent Peter Strzok and
others, by their actions, just made it more difficult for special counsel Robert Mueller to prosecute Trump for
obstruction. There is now a comprehensive conclusion by career investigators that Comey
violated core agency rules and undermined the integrity of the FBI. In other words, there was
ample reason to fire James Comey.
Had Trump fired Comey immediately upon taking office, there would be little question about
his conduct warranting such termination. Instead, Trump waited to fire him and proceeded to
make damaging statements about how the Russian investigation was on his mind at the time, as
well as telling Russian diplomats the day after that the firing took "pressure off" him.
Nevertheless, Mueller will have to acknowledge that there were solid, if not overwhelming,
grounds to fire Comey.
To use the Comey firing now in an obstruction case, Mueller will have to assume that the
firing of an "insubordinate" official was done for the wrong reason. Horowitz faced precisely
this same problem in his review and refused to make such assumptions about Comey and others.
The IG report found additional emails showing a political bias against Trump and again
featuring the relationship of Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. In one exchange, Page
again sought reassurance from Strzok, who was a critical player in the investigations of both
Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump , that Trump
is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, "No. No he won't.
We'll stop it."
The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when
the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical
player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the
investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as
Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails "potentially indicated or created the
appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations." This
includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton
investigation. The IG states that "[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this
decision by Strzok was free from bias."
However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not "find
documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias,
directly affected the specific investigative decisions." Thus, there was bias reflected in the
statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative
reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey
firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the
act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey's own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about
his motives.
Many of us who have criticized Comey in the past, including former Republican and Democratic
Justice Department officials, have not alleged a political bias. As noted by the IG report,
Comey's actions did not benefit the FBI or Justice Department but, rather, caused untold harm
to those institutions. The actions benefited Comey as he tried to lighten his load in heading
into a new administration. It was the same motive that led Comey to improperly remove FBI memos
and then leak information to the media after he was fired by Trump. It was jetsam thrown
overboard intentionally by Comey to save himself, not his agency.
The Horowitz report is characteristically balanced. It finds evidence of political bias
among key FBI officials against Trump and criticizes officials in giving the investigation of
Trump priority over the investigation of Clinton. However, it could not find conclusive
evidence that such political bias was the sole reason for the actions taken in the
investigation. The question is whether those supporting the inspector general in reaching such
conclusions would support the same approach by the special counsel when the subject is not
Comey but Trump.
Comey is simply two-legged pond scum. He did what he thought would preserve his privileged
position. No way a POS like him would go against the wishes of Barry, Loretta and Hillary.
The question I have is this: were those three acting in concert to beat Trump or did Barry
direct Jimmy to do in Hillary with that late-stage reopening of the inquiry? Barry would have
hated to have Hillary replace him, because - if she actually lived through it - she would
probably have reduced him to a minor historical footnote. His ego couldn't handle that. Heck,
I wouldn't even exclude the possibility that Bubba's meeting with Loretta, perhaps including
a phone call with Barry, was about keeping Hillary out of the White House. It might have
cramped Bubba's style, being first dude and all and under close scrutiny.
Although damning in many respects, the IG's report falls short in identifying prosecutable
actions on the part of FbI / DoJ officials... There may be some firings, but that's about
it...
Comey will get to skate with the $$$ from his book tour / Trump bashing tour, Stroczk
and Page sail off into the sunset and likely go to work for some Dim think tank, the rank and
file all go back to work thinking, phew, that one was close...
McCabe is going to be the
poster child that gets the stick, while at the same time the underlying bias in these two
agencies will continue unabated...
This report whitewashed the worst crimes.... The OIG reports recommendations and what they
chose to ignore is reminiscing of Comey's now infamous indictment and exoneration of Hillary Clinton from that 2016 press conference.
The FBI takes bribes from the media for secret insider information and used the media
connections for disinformation to twist the narrative for Clinton. Hundreds of interactions
with MSM, bribes being handed out. These jerks must feel their power to be the unnamed
sources, looks like they've dug their own grave. Literally hundreds of contacts, recorded
bribes and an extreme close relation with CNN and New York Times. This is the source of all
the disinformation, lies, rumors and destruction to our nation. The FBI is the enemy with
their unlawful alliance with communist and homosexuals in the media. I wonder how many FBI
agents are communist and homosexuals?
The key in all this is the political slush fund of over a $100 billion which everyone
ignores, the Clinton Foundation will make or break politicians for a corrupt elitist
communist agenda for the next generation. It's being protected from investigation because of
the previous crimes of Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and who knows how many others. The Clinton
Foundation was bribed by foreigners for access, favors and the plan to use the money to take
over the US government.
Uranium One is just one covert operation which ensnares all of these opportunist. The
Haitian relief money, remember Bush II sat right next to Clinton stating the reason or his
purpose was to prevent the Haitian money from being stolen. That was on national full
throated MSM. Are there murders connected to the Clinton Foundation? Considering
Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz most likely ordered an FBI agent to look into Seth Rich,
Pakistanis infiltrating the highest level of leadership, Iranian cocaine smuggling network
the FBI was prepared to take down stopped by Obama because it would interfere with the Iran
nuke deal. None of this is being added to the equation, incredible FBI and overall government
corruption.
It's worse than a swamp, it's an army aligned against us with no honor, decency or even
allegiance to this nation, only their gang, allegiance to an organization, a gang covering up
to continue to do the same. Each agency of the federal government is of this culture, the
break down in this country is apart of every aspect of the government.
Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and
Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted.
Slow-walking an investigation resulting in no charges being filed despite clear evidence
of multiple crimes -- I would call THAT clear obstruction. McCabe and Comey have conspired to
try to dump this on Strzok. It would be funny if it weren't so despicable.
What can you expect from Comey, paid $7 million a year by HSBC, the bank that laundered
some $12 billion in narco trafficker (read CIA proxy) narcotic money? Lock him up in SuperMax
in a narrow cell next to jewboy Rosenstein.i
The thing is, Trump was his boss, and if he decided the Russia coup was a waste of FBI
time, he has every right to fire the head of the FBI, for continuing to waist time and money,
purposely trying to undermine the election.
Remember, this is before there was a special counsel, and if after a year of investigating
there's no there there, there sure as shit wasn't anything back then to investigate!
There is nothing illegal about the President telling Comey to knock it off, or else.
He should tell the press what they want to here. Of course the phony Russia scam played a
part in getting Comey fired, rightfully so. Then stand with his fist in the air shouting Fuck
the Prestitutes!
For a year now, they've been in a search for something, anything, to investigate.
He should fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller, TODAY, and watch their heads
explode!
There is an evil intent in all this, beyond the obvious.
Many believe WWG1WGA means, "Where we go one we go all".
A Ponzi always collapses the minute it stops growing, it's a 100% certainty. From the
start, ~100 years ago, the Oligarchs who gathered on Jekyll Island knew that their debt money
would grow right up to the day it suddenly collapsed, and planned it with all it's allure,
hooks, and traps, to consume everything, before that day, so that all would be in the same
boat when it collapses. They planned it to fail from the start. It's a mutual suicide Trap,
set up to consume the world, consolidate power, then collapse all the Nation's currencies in
one fail swoop!
For in a single hour such fabulous wealth has been destroyed!
They'll have their grand New World Order, and a knew single currency waiting in the wings,
to rescue the useful idiots from the disaster they've planned.
They'll attempt to number us all, track everything, and dictate how you buy and sell -
through them of course. But not just what you buy with, but what you buy, who you buy from,
how much you buy, and how much you will pay!
That is their plan. How far they'll get nobody knows. I suspect they'll fail miserably,
but the truth is, they're already a long way down this road.
It did not just impact perception. It factually altered the FBI protocol. Comey was high on power of co-running the deep state and subverting justice and the
Constitution. This is high treason, covering high crimes and attempting to unseat Trump at every
juncture.
The FBI isn't and you still think J.Edgar was an aberration ? The FBI is the swamps gamekeeper, nurturing the critters, weeding out the weak, until
only the foulest and strongest they can be unleashed on us. Take two red pills and report back in the morning.
Some reader are close: "It looks like Justice/FBI usurped the role of the vote by the electorate."
Notable quotes:
"... OK, so if Comey broke protocols and was insubordinate in the Clinton probe, then the "probe" and exoneration is bogus. She never really was investigated and cleared and It should be re-opened. Investigate and Prosecute Clinton for real. Make it a sting operation. Get wire tap and surveillance warrants for the entire DOJ, FBI, all courts and judges, heck the entire bureaucracy and all umpteen intelligence organizations, and all known Clinton associates. A dragnet for all the corruption and obstruction of justice by the deep state. Root out the corrupt Clinton crime organization once and for all. ..."
"... It looks like Justice/FBI usurped the role of the vote by the electorate. ..."
"... They live in a Matrix like false reality generated by the Fake media. ..."
"... The champagne is flowing -- they got off the hook. All of the FBI screwballs are probably well past the drunkard stage and well into the sleeping under the table and on park benches stage. ..."
"... This whole article is a one sided view of a complex situation. Nothing is mentioned about the OIG stating that Comey was insubordinate in disclosing that he is investigating Clinton, that too in a press conference. This is clearly against FBI policy and had the purpose of muddying up the race and giving Trump momentum. ..."
"... The government just got done investigating itself. It found after an exhaustive taxpayer funded audit that it made a few errors, but that it was generally well meaning. I mean, what did anyone really expect? ..."
"... These FBI weasels fell all over themselves to demonstrate fealty to te incoming Hillary Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee's interests. If they hoped to get anywhere in the next 4-8 years they had to be clearly "friendly" to the people at the top. Then Trump won instead. Fuck!!! ..."
"... Carreer-minded weasels entrenched in the Washington Deep State will happily show support for whatever "winning side" comes along. Romney, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Obama, it doen't matter who wins to them so long as they consider you "friendly" to their ambitions. ..."
As we digest and unpack the DOJ Inspector General's 500-page report on the FBI's conduct during the
Hillary Clinton email
investigation
"
matter
," damning
quotes from the OIG's findings have begun to circulate, leaving many to wonder exactly how
Inspector General Michael Horowitz was able to conclude:
"
We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations,
including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed"
We're sorry, that just doesn't comport with reality whatsoever. And it
really
feels
like the OIG report may have had a different conclusion at some point. Just read IG Horowitz's own
assessment that "These texts are "
Indicative of a biased state of mind but even more
seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the Presidential candidate's
electoral prospects
."
Of course,
today's crown jewel
is a
previously undisclosed exchange
between Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page in which Page asks "
(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
to
which Strzok replies "
No. No he's not. We'll stop it.
"
Nevermind the fact that
the FBI Director, who used personal emails for work
purposes, tasked Strzok, who used personal emails for work purposes, to investigate Hillary
Clinton's use of personal emails for work purposes
. Of course, we know it goes far
deeper than that...
1) Don't believe anyone who claims Horowitz didn't find bias. He very carefully says that he
found no "documentary" evidence that bias produced "specific investigatory decisions." That's
different
2) It means he didn't catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a
specific step to aid a candidate. You know, like: "Let's give out this Combetta immunity deal so
nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for President."
3)
But he in fact finds bias everywhere. The examples are shocking and concerning, and he
devotes entire sections to them. And he very specifically says in the summary that they "cast a
cloud" on the entire "investigation's credibility." That's pretty damning.
4)
Meanwhile this same cast of characters who the IG has now found to have made a hash of
the Clinton investigation and who demonstrate such bias, seamlessly moved to the Trump
investigation. And we're supposed to think they got that one right?
5)
Also don't believe anyone who says this is just about Comey and his instances of
insubordination. (Though they are bad enough.) This is an indictment broadly of an FBI culture
that believes itself above the rules it imposes on others.
6)
People failing to adhere to their recusals (Kadzik/McCabe). Lynch hanging with Bill.
Staff helping Comey conceal details of presser from DOJ bosses. Use of personal email and
laptops. Leaks. Accepting gifts from media. Agent affairs/relationships.
7)
It also contains stunning examples of incompetence. Comey explains that he wasn't aware
the Weiner laptop was big deal because he didn't know Weiner was married to Abedin? Then they
sit on it a month, either cuz it fell through cracks (wow) or were more obsessed w/Trump
8) And I can still hear the echo of the howls from when Trump fired Comey. Still waiting
to hear the apologies now that this report has backstopped the Rosenstein memo and the obvious
grounds for dismissal.
So, let's review more of the exchanges which had no bearing on the "unbiased" report:
"
OIG discovered texts and instant messages
between employees on the
investigative team, on FBI devices,
expressing hostility toward then candidate Donald
Trump and statements of support for then candidate Hillary Clinton.
"
Viva le resistance!
In one shocking exchange between two unnamed FBI employees which we assume to be Strzok and
Page, "Attorney 1" asks "Attorney 2" "Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump
administration?" to which "Attorney 2" replied "
Hell no
," adding "
Viva le
resistance
."
Some of Strzok and Page's greatest hits:
August 16, 2015, Strzok: "
[Bernie Sanders is] an idiot like Trump.
Figure they
cancel each other out."
February 12, 2016, Page: "I'm no prude, but I'm really appalled by this. So you don't have to
go looking (in case you hadn't heard),
Trump called him the p-word.
The man has no dignity or class
.
[texted the FBI
agents having an extramarital affair]
He simply cannot be president.
February 12, 2016, Strzok:
"Oh, [Trump's] abysmal
. I keep hoping the charade
will end and people will just dump him. The problem, then, is Rubio will likely lose to Cruz. The
Republican party is in utter shambles. When was the last competitive ticket they offered?"
March 3, 2016, Page:
"God trump is a loathsome human.
"
March 3, 2016, Strzok: "Omg
[Trump's] an idiot.
March 3, 2016, Page:
"He's awful."
March 3, 2016, Strzok:
"God Hillary should win 100,000,000-0."
March 3, 2016, Page: "
Also did you hear [Trump] make a comment about the size of his
d*ck earlier?
This man cannot be president."
March 12, 2016: Page forwarded an article about a "far right" candidate in Texas, stating,
"[W]hat the f is wrong with people?" Strzok replied, "That Texas article is depressing as hell.
But answers how we could end up with President trump."
March 16, 2016, Page: "
I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious
candidate for president
."
June 11, 2016, Strzok: "They fully deserve to go, and demonstrate
the absolute bigoted
nonsense of Trump
."
July 18, 2016, Page: "...
Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche
."
July 19, 2016, Page: "Trump barely spoke, but the first thing out of his mouth was 'we're going
to win soooo big.
'The whole thing is like living in a bad dream
."
July 21, 2016, Strzok: "Trump is a disaster.
I have no idea how destabilizing his
Presidency would be
."
August 26, 2016, Strzok: "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart.
I could SMELL the
Trump support....
"
September 26, 2016, Page: Page sent an article to Strzok entitled, "
Why
Donald Trump Should Not Be President
," stating, "Did you read this? It's scathing. And
I'm scared."
October 19, 2016, Strzok: "I am riled up.
Trump is a fucking idiot
, is unable
to provide a coherent answer."
November 7, 2016, Strzok: Referencing an article entitled "
A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
November 13, 2016, Page: "I bought all the president's men.
Figure I needed to
brush up on watergate
."
Strzok also refers to having "unfinished business" and a need to "fix it"
-
while also admitting that "
there's no big there, there
" presumably regarding the
Trump-Russia investigation.
While there are
many
more damning revelations in the OIG report, one would
think that given the above, there was more than enough evidence to, at minimum, launch a special
counsel - especially when you consider the weak sauce used to justify Mueller's special counsel
probe.
FBI management in offices around the world will be having
their Friday poker and whiskey (this actually happens) and will lean
back and their chairs and say, "Give it a couple months, it'll blow
over," and back to business.
In fact, it's back to business right at this moment.
Let's just hope that in their brilliant incompetence, the DOJ
missed some real nuggets in those 500 pages. I'm hopeful (but
doubtful) that we we will find some more bombshells that will
prompt more outrage and uprising/waking of the sheep.
OK, so if Comey broke protocols and was insubordinate in the
Clinton probe, then the "probe" and exoneration is bogus. She
never really was investigated and cleared and It should be
re-opened. Investigate and Prosecute Clinton for real. Make it
a sting operation. Get wire tap and surveillance warrants for
the entire DOJ, FBI, all courts and judges, heck the entire
bureaucracy and all umpteen intelligence organizations, and all
known Clinton associates. A dragnet for all the corruption and
obstruction of justice by the deep state. Root out the corrupt
Clinton crime organization once and for all.
It looks like Justice/FBI usurped the role of the vote by
the electorate. I suggest the electorate go to DC and
usurp the role of Justice/FBI and vote on who to hang.
From the report...I'm going to pull a
ravolla-type spam ;-)
"Combetta was
interviewed subject to the terms of the immunity
agreement on May 3, 2016, by the same two FBI
case agents, this time in the presence of the
SSA, the CART examiner, all four line
prosecutors, and Combetta's attorneys. According
to the FD-302 and contemporaneous notes of the
two agents and the CART Examiner, Combetta
provided the FBI additional detail regarding his
removal of emails from the culling laptops,
stating that Mills had requested that he
"securely delete the .pst files" in November or
December 2014 but had not specifically requested
that he use "deletion software." He told the FBI
that he was the one who recommended the use of
"BleachBit" because he had used it for other
clients. He also acknowledged removing the HRC
Archive mailbox from the PRN server between
March 25, 2015, and March 31, 2015
,
and using BleachBit to "shred" any remaining
copies of Clinton's email on the server (Edit:
To include certain emails to Chelsea of all
people...lol...and the Egyptian Prime Minister
about yoga classes & wedding invitations that
happened the day before Sept 12 2012, no
doubt)...
...despite his awareness of
Congress's preservation order
and
his understanding that the order meant that "he
should not disturb Clinton's email data on the
PRN server."
So clearly no "obstruction"!
Addendum:
The May 22, 2015,
letter
from Under Secretary of State for Management
Patrick F. to Clinton attorney Kendall reads in
part:
I am writing in reference to the following
e-mail that is among the approximately 55,000
pages that were identified as potential
federal records and produced on behalf of
former Secretary Clinton to the Depatment of
State on
December 5, 2014: E-mail
forwarded by Jacob Sullivan to Secretary
Clinton on November 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm
(Subject: Fw: FYI- Report of arrests
-possible Benghazi connection).
Please be advised that today the above
referenced e-mail,
which previously
was unclassified
, has been
classified as "Secret" pursuant to Section
1.7(d) of Executive Order 13526 in connection
with a review and release under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). In order to
safeguard and protect the classified
information, I ask – consistent with my
letter to you dated March 23 2015 – that you,
Secretary Clinton and others assisting her in
responding to congressional and related
inquiries coordinate in taking the steps set
forth below. A copy of the document as
redacted under the FOIA is attached to assist
you in your search.
****
Once you have made the electronic copy of
the documents for the Department, please
locate any electronic copies of the
above-referenced classified document in your
possession.
If you locate any
electronic copies, please delete them.
Additionally, once you have done that, please
empty your "Deleted Items" folder.
Because it just wouldn't do to have Hillary's
emails stating the obvious while Rice is out
saying something else so, we've classified it!
//////
Resuming...
"The agents asked Bentel about
allegations
by two S/ES-IRM staff members
that
they had raised concerns about Clinton's use of
personal email to him during separate meetings.
According
to the State IG report,
one of the staff
members told the State IG that Bentel told the
staff member that "the mission of S/ES-IRM is to
support the Secretary" and instructed the staff
member to "never speak of the Secretary's
personal email system again."94 .
According
to the FD-302 and agent notes,
the
agents showed Bentel documents that suggested
that he was aware that Clinton had a private
email server
that she used for official
business during their joint tenure. One of the
agents explained that the purpose of asking
Bentel about his knowledge of the server was to
assess whether Clinton's use of the server was
sanctioned by the State Department.
However,
Bentel maintained that he was unaware that
Clinton used personal email to conduct official
business until it was reported in the news and
denied that anyone had raised concerns about it
to him."
The staff are obviously lying Trumptards!
/////
"On April 9, 2016, Mills appeared with
Wilkinson for a voluntary interview concerning
Mills's tenure at State. According to a FBI
memorandum ("Mills Interview Memorandum"),
shortly before the interview
Strzok
advised the prosecutors
and Laufman
that the agent conducting the interview would be
making a statement at the start of the interview
"concerning the scope of [the] interview, the
FBI's view of the importance of the email
sorting process,
and the expectation of
a follow-up interview
once legal issues
had been resolved." Witnesses referred to this
statement as "the preamble."
Comey told the OIG that
he approved
of the preamble
but did not suggest it,
and McCabe stated that
he "authorized"
the
preamble. McCabe told us that he directed the
FBI team not to discuss the preamble with the
prosecutors before the day of the interview
because he was "concerned that if we raised
another issue with DOJ, we would spend another
two weeks arguing over the drafting of the
preamble to the interview, which I just was not
prepared to do."
The prosecutors told us that they
were surprised and upset because the preamble
was inconsistent with their prior
representations to Wilkinson and they believed
it was strategically ill-advised.
The
Mills Interview Memorandum states that the
prosecutors objected to the preamble but that
they were told that "the FBI's position was not
subject to further discussion." According to the
Mills Interview Memorandum, the interviewing
agents delivered the preamble at the outset of
the interview as planned. Witnesses told us...
Footnote 100:
Baker told us that he
had known Wilkinson for many years, and
documents show that she had previously reached
out to him in Midyear as part of a broad effort
to speak with senior Department and FBI
officials, up to and including Attorney General
Lynch. Lynch and other high level Department
officials told us that they did not speak with
Wilkinson during the course of the
investigation.
...that Wilkinson was visibly angered by the
preamble and that she and Mills stepped outside
the interview room after the agent delivered it.
The prosecutors stated that they convinced
Wilkinson and Mills to return for the remainder
of the scheduled interview concerning Mills's
tenure. However, according to Prosecutor 1,
Mills was "on edge the whole time."
Footnote 101: According to notes of the
interview, the prosecutors told Wilkinson that
they were
"sandbagged" by the FBI
and
that they did not know in advance about the
preamble. Additionally, according to the notes,
Wilkinson
informed the prosecutors of the call the
previous day from a "senior FBI official."
Baker or McCabe? I would say Baker, no wonder
she was blindsided & pissed, they'll screw
anyone & everyone over. Even "close confidantes"
at her (and the prosecutors) inferior levels,
just to muck up..."the process"
/////
Ah yes, here it is...
"Prosecutors and FBI agents told us that the
events surrounding the April 9 Mills interview,
including
both the preamble and Baker phone call
that
were planned without Department coordination,
caused significant strife and mistrust between
the line prosecutors and the FBI.
AAG Carlin told us that the prosecution team
asked him to call McCabe and "deliver a message
that this is just not an acceptable way to run
an investigation." Carlin told us that he
delivered this message to McCabe and also
briefed Lynch and Yates on the issues.
Witnesses told us that the strife between the
prosecutors and the FBI team culminated in a
contentious meeting
chaired by McCabe
a
few days later. On the Department side, this
meeting was attended by the line prosecutors,
Laufman, and Toscas. Prosecutor 2 told us that
during this meeting the prosecutors explained
that they were trying to be "careful" in their
handling of complicated issues, and that McCabe
responded that they should
"be careful
faster."
Laufman stated that McCabe's
comment "undervalued what we had been able to
accomplish to date investigatively through
negotiating consent agreements." According to
Laufman's notes, McCabe agreed that Baker's
unilateral contacts with Wilkinson should not
have happened, and Baker agreed not to have
further contact with Wilkinson. With respect to
the preamble, however, the prosecutors told us
that
McCabe stated that he would "do it
again."
"Be careful faster"...lol...I mean, what the
hell is the matter with you people! There's an
election on the line here and my wife Jill is on
the ballot
riding Hillary's
skirt while pocketing $675k from Hillary cronies
and...I would "do it again"...well, of course
you would.
/////
"On May 4, 2016, a few weeks before Mills and
Samuelson were voluntarily interviewed regarding
the culling process and a little over a month
before the FBI obtained the culling laptops,
Strzok and Page exchanged the following text
messages. The sender of each message is
identified after the timestamp.
8:40 p.m., Page: "And holy shit Cruz just
dropped out of the race. It's going to be a
Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable."
8:41 p.m., Strzok: "What?!?!??"
8:41 p.m., Page: "You heard that right my
friend."
8:41 p.m., Strzok: "I saw trump won, figured
it would be a bit."
8:41 p.m., Strzok: "Now the pressure really
starts to finish MYE "
8:42 p.m., Page: "It sure does. We need to
talk about follow up call tomorrow. We still
never have."
They ignored the political bias showing
us all the deep state is still in charge
Nothing will happen to hillary
They won't name the chosen scapegoats
thus showing us all the deep state is
running things
They doubled down on Trump and Jr with
an investigation into a charity they were
involved with and continue to ignore the
Clinton Foundation showing us all the deep
state's in charge
I hate to even say this, but reading and seeing
the self-righteous douchebags in DC who
sanctimoniously talk about the rule of law and
the interference in our system by Russian trolls
on the internet, I can not help but be struck by
what Comey, McCabe and Strzok have managed to do
by themselves. If there is no punishment for
these people, no punishment for Hillary
Clinton's gross malfeasance, then what
difference is there between Putin's regime and
our "Republic?" How is it that the law does not
apply to these people/
Hillary willfully
mishandled classified information. Seaman
Saucier did less, and spent a year in jail.
Hillary has done so much, so wrong for so long,
and gotten so wealthy through influence peddling
and payoffs she might as well be an oligarch -
in fact, she is a political oligarch. McCabe
lied under oath, and it is clear he and Comey
are covering for each other in their political
plot to see their padron elected. Comey wanted
to be AG, and McCabe Director. Hillary no doubt
promised them their dreams. Strzok likely would
move up into McCabe's job. So they obstructed
justice, but didn't write each other explicit
memos about it - and therefore there is no
case???? This is a cabal protecting their own,
just as they do in Russia and Syria and corrupt
South American banana republics.
If the trolls start calling for protest
rallies in the streets, they might get them.
This kind of blatant abuse of the system with no
consequences should get true Americans out in
the streets to protest. This is not about Trump.
This is about pure political corruption in law
enforcement and the Obama Administration.
Hilary writes "but my emails" about Comey -
as if. Hillary, STFU. You lost an election a
goddamn platypus could have won. Your utter
venality, your shrill self-righteousness, you
repugnant enabling of your pig husband... you
are personally responsible for Trump's election,
and you should be in jail. It feels as if the
Mueller investigation is another set up by your
boys to ensure the Administration is too
distracted to prosecute you.
The Fake News Liberal Media has everyone in that delusion. They live in a Matrix like false reality generated by the Fake media. All the magazines and papers follow the same editorial stance. It is a giant echo chamber. They are all zombies doing the bidding of the Deep state and elite interests.
Trump did just tweet after Singapore that enemy #1 is Fake News. Hopefully he will have action coming.
The champagne is flowing -- they got off the hook.
All of the FBI screwballs are probably well past the
drunkard stage and well into the sleeping under the
table and on park benches stage.
Any one in trouble for abusing information in any
way should keep all these proceedings handy for the
court hearing.
After all, if the vaunted FBI can get off the hook
for abusing national security information for sport,
why should anyone else get into trouble for less?
Any health professional who treats confidential
medical information for gossip or personal gain would
get fired, raked over the coals, and possibly
prosecuted.
But any smart defense lawyer can now refer to the
DoJ as the standard and precedent for dismissing the
charge of information abuse.
Any financial professional who treats confidential
financial information for gossip, or monetary gain for
him/her or his/her friends and associates would get
fired, raked over the coals, and possibly prosecuted.
But any smart defense lawyer can now refer to the
DoJ as the standard and precedent for dismissing the
charge of information abuse.
Any legal professional who treats confidential
legal information for gossip, jury and
evidence tampering, payoffs, bribes, etc., would get
fired, raked over the coals, and possibly prosecuted.
But any smart defense lawyer can now refer to the
DoJ as the standard and precedent for dismissing the
charge of information abuse.
Any professional or employee in any field has an
obligation to treat confidential information with
respect or at least according to protocol or face
being fired, raked over the coals, or possibly
prosecuted.
But thanks to the FBICIANSA psychos and
psychotic Swamp Dwellers anyone can now abuse
information of any kind and thank the DC Swamp for so
generously providing a precedent to get away with it.
Nothing will happen outside of McCabe and some low level losers.
This is a nightmare because if validates the use of the FBI/CIA/DIA,
etc. against the American people. I mean seriously, does anyone
think that a government agency which supported incinerating women
and children in Waco would actually go after their own vile souls?
That's exactly what needs to occur for the futile system of
Tyrannical Lawlessness & Political Police Surveillance State to
be accepted / instituted by State onto the Serfs.
The State
has to Gas Light the populace into thinking that even a sitting
President is "Guilty until proven innocent." And, if a
President is powerless against & can be removed by
a Totalitarian, Authoritarian, Tyrannical Lawless, Political
Police State, then anyone who poses a threat to said State can
be threatened, persecuted & or Eliminated.
President has to be set, that if a sitting President can be
taken down. Anyone can be taken, disappeared, droned,
Murdered, Tortured, Rendered & never seen from again.
The Slaves won't stand a chance.
Welcome to Serfdom.
This whole article is a one sided view of a complex situation. Nothing is
mentioned about the OIG stating that Comey was insubordinate in disclosing
that he is investigating Clinton, that too in a press conference. This is
clearly against FBI policy and had the purpose of muddying up the race and
giving Trump momentum.
These conspiracy theories are really the kind of
stuff that goes on in pakistan, middle east, north korea where they want to
blame everyone else but themselves for supporting the wrong people/clowns.
Life is complicated, learn to think thru issues and follow a chain of logic
thru multiple levels.
The government just got done investigating itself. It found after an
exhaustive taxpayer funded audit that it made a few errors, but that it was
generally well meaning.
I mean, what did anyone really expect?
Trump pulled a major political upset, defying all
the pre-election polls and predictions, and caught a lot of career-track
Federal employees completely off guard. Political contacts and friends
count a LOT when you work for a Federal cabinet-level organization and
hope to climb the career ladder to a high level position. They count
more than talent, devotion to Country, ethics, everything. That's how
it works.
These FBI weasels fell all over themselves to demonstrate
fealty to te incoming Hillary Clinton administration and the Democratic
National Committee's interests.
If they hoped to get anywhere in
the next 4-8 years they had to be clearly "friendly" to the people at
the top. Then Trump won instead. Fuck!!!
Carreer-minded weasels entrenched in the Washington Deep State will
happily show support for whatever "winning side" comes along. Romney,
McCain, Bush, Clinton, Obama, it doen't matter who wins to them so long
as they consider you "friendly" to their ambitions. Hell, they'd ardently support Hitler or Stalin if it would advance their
careers. No integrity whatsoever.
Whitewash.
Swamp wins again.
These cats haven't lost an hour of sleep worrying about consequences.
I say, oh well....games have new rules now. Do whatever it takes to get
ahead...and fuck em. Laws have no meaning anymore.
Oh no, I do believe Page is scared and Strzok is terrified, as they
predicted they would be. But like raccoons they just exist to fight and
kill you. They have to be criminally charged, and for that all that
matters is the evidence (in this version of the report and the more
secure ones) provided by the IG, not his carefully wordsmithed
conclusions.
So now we know Comey was really a drama queen and used private emails for
government business. (let that sink in) Now let's play along, the head of the
IRS did the same thing, the head of the EPA did the same thing and move on
down the line. Looks like more than a smidgen.
It's so ridiculous on its face (Trump inner circle guy hangs around
4-chan and then 8-chan to plant clues), that I suppose I can't blame
people for not wanting to admit how stupid they were for believing
it. Then again, it is that very "I won't admit I was wrong and I
believe anyone who supports my ideology" attitude that explains why
politician after politician gets away with literal murder.
The clues Q provides are interesting. Real time photos, etc.
Some of it involves the "Russia investigation", some about NK
stuff, some about other stuff. It's an interesting source of
news, like those photos.
For fucking starters, where is the criminal referrals for allowing Hillary to
smash her hard drives, wipe her server, and for not confiscating her server
and examining it?
Everyone knows Comey is not professional FBI nor an
investigator. He is a
political
appointee and he took the astounding
unprecedented step of taking the investigation away from professional
investigators in the field office to directly manage it and be fluffed in the
7th Floor Hoover Bldg.
Where's the scathing rebuke and criminal investigation into the obstruction
that ensued? That is not 'insubordination'.... that conspiracy.
IG's don't make criminal referrals. AG's and others do. That's why the
evidence Horowitz came up with, which we all see is damning, is
important. (Probably much better stuff in the LES and classified
parts.) His artfully worded conclusions, carefully stepping around
blaming anyone very much, don't matter.
Even WaPo sees this and isn't
downplaying the report or taking comfort in those conclusions.
Come to think of it, it's disappointing that apparently Horowitz didn't
follow the trails that led up to Obama. Maybe those were on private
servers, hence outside his scope. But not outside the scope of a criminal
investigation.
"
Also did you
hear [Trump] make a
comment about the
size of his d*ck
earlier?
This man
cannot be president.
"
Yet I guess it's OK
for you that the
Magic Negro
can make a video of
his erection while
flying on Air Force
One? That his
entourage is nothing
but a bacchanal of
drugs and a continuum
of sexual orgies and
illicit affairs
according to former
White House
stenographer Beck
Dorey-Stein's
upcoming memoir,
From
the Corner of the
Oval?
Lisa Page, you're
nothing but a
Hypocrite Ho!
"
Just went
to a southern
Virginia Walmart.
I could SMELL the
Trump support....
"
That's the smell
of hard working,
sweaty poorly paid
workers suffering
from illegal
immigration, the
forgotten American
people. You are just
like Marie Antoinette
and Hillary,
elitists who forgot
their roots and what
made this country.
"Comey explains that he wasn't aware the Weiner laptop was big deal because he didn't know Weiner was married to Abedin? "
Someone pointed out that this means that Comey believed Hillary's emails appeared on the computer of some random pervert, and didn't think twice about it. It's even more outrageous than the truth of the matter, that's how desperately this guy is lying.
Comey caught lying when he says he didn't know Weiner was married to
Abedin.
If this was true, why didn't he prosecute Weiner for owning a
laptop that had classified State Department emails on them? Weiner didn't
have any business having State Department emails.
Weiner and Abedin should have been charged for possessing these emails
but Comey's "investigation" found nothing new.
So, Strozk, what will you do to stop Trump from being POTUS?
Strzok also refers to having "unfinished business" and a need to "fix it"
What "unfinished business," Strzok? Tell us all here what sedition y'all
been plotting against POTUS. Amazing that this guy was
counter-intelligence (supposedly knowing that electronic communications are
all conveyed over an "uncovered wire.")
while also admitting that "
there's no big there, there
"
presumably regarding the Trump-Russia investigation. I have no doubt that
Strzok moved heaven and earth to find the "there there."
The OIG Report Drops Tomorrow On Trump's Birthday; Here's What To Expect
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 19:05 205 SHARES
The highly anticipated OIG report from the Justice Department's internal watchdog will
hit tomorrow at 3pm EST , on President Trump's 72nd birthday. The 400-500 page document,
prepared by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, will specifically address the DOJ/FBI's conduct
surrounding the Hillary Clinton email investigation . It will not cover any of the FISA abuse /
surveillance on the Trump campaign - for which a separate OIG investigation was launched in
late March .
Here's what to look for:
Hillary Clinton's exoneration letter
In December, Congressional
investigators discovered that edits made to former FBI Director James Comey's statement
exonerating Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified info over an unsecured, private email
server went
far beyond what was previously known.
While Comey's original draft criminalized Clinton's behavior by using the term "gross
negligence" and other language supportive of criminal charges, the FBI's top brass passed the
draft around and neutered it. Instead of "grossly negligent," Clinton's conduct was
reclassified as "extremely careless" - a term which carries no legal significance.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to
"gross negligence": "What my client did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it
was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option but to recommend
prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
Involved in the edits were Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa
and DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson .
Immunity agreements
The FBI granted immunity in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and aide Heather
Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the
remaining 30,000 records to the State Department . Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence
on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over in the investigation.
The FBI also granted immunity to the guy who wiped Hillary's server with "BleachBit" , P
aul Combetta .
For those who "do not recall" the specific timeline leading up to Combetta wiping Hillary's
server,
here is a breif recap :
December 2014 / January 2015 – "Undisclosed Clinton staff member" instructs Combetta
to remove archives of Clinton emails from PRN server but he forgets.
March 4, 2015 – Hillary receives subpoena from House Select Committee on Benghazi
instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers.
March 25, 2015 – Combetta has a conference call with "President Clinton's
Staff."
March 25 – 31, 2015 – Combetta has "oh shit" moment and realizes he forgot to
wipe Hillary's email archive from the PRN server back in December which he promptly does
using BleachBit.
February 18, 2016 - Combetta meets with FBI and denies knowing about the existense of the
subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi at the time he wiped Hillary's
server.
May 3, 2016 - Combetta has follow-up meeting with the FBI and admits that he "was aware of
the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb
Clinton's e-mail data on the PRN server."
McCabe's conflicts of interest
While an earlier IG report which led to former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's firing
focused on McCabe leaking self-serving information to the press and then lying about it (four
times), this portion of the IG report will focus on " [a]llegations that the FBI Deputy
Director should have been recused from participating in certain investigative matters," after
his, Jill McCabe, accepted $675,000 from "groups aligned with Clinton and McAuliffe" during her
unsuccessful Senate bid - which constituted nearly 40% of the campaign's total
funds.
In addition to discussing whether McCabe should have recused from the investigation,
Horowitz's report will likely discuss the FBI's ethics office
decision that recusal was not required, and the FBI's
creation of "talking points" to counter complaints about McCabe's participation in the
Clinton probe. -
The Federalist
Comey's higher loyalties
The report will also focus on Comey's conduct during the investigation - as IG Horowitz
outlined "Allegations that Department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed in
connection with, or in actions leading up to or related to, the FBI Director's public
announcement on July 5, 2016, and the Director's letters to Congress on October 28 and November
6, 2016, and that certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper
considerations ."
Also under investigation will be the FBI's decision to reopen the Clinton email
investigation on October 28, 2016 after additional emails were found on the laptop of Clinton's
top aide, Anthony Weiner - who is currently in prison for sex crimes involving a minor. After a
very fast review , Comey told Congress on November 6, 2016 that the FBI's assessment that
Clinton should not be charged had not changed.
"I think the report of Horowitz, the [inspector general], and the Justice Department will
confirm that Comey acted improperly with regard to the Hillary Clinton investigation," Trump's
lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently told New York radio host John Catsimatidis.
"Comey, really, has a chance of being prosecuted as a result of [this report], but we'll
see," Giuliani said.
Criminal prosecution?
While the IG has already issued a criminal referral for Andrew McCabe based on the earlier
report, tomorrow's release will similarly shed light on others who may receive (or have already
received) criminal referrals.
Anyone within the senior ranks of the FBI who was involved with the Clinton email
investigation is at risk - including James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap,
Jonathan Moffa, Peter Kadzik and DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson .
A tipoff?
The OIG investigation will also cover "[a]llegations that the Department's Assistant
Attorney General for Legislative Affairs improperly disclosed non-public information to the
Clinton campaign and/or should have been recused from participating in certain matters."
In particular, the report will look at former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik 's
role in the investigation and whether he " tipped off Clinton presidential campaign chairman
John Podesta about two issues: an upcoming hearing where a Justice Department official would be
asked about the Clinton emails, and the timing of the release of some Clinton emails"
Notably, Kadzik "previously worked for Podesta as an attorney."
That weird FBI twitter account
The OIG will also look at " [a]llegations that decisions regarding the timing of the FBI's
release of certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents on October 30 and November 1,
2016, and the use of a Twitter account to publicize same, were influenced by improper
considerations ."
This is related to a series of tweets issued by the largely dormant @FBIRecordsVault account
which began one day after Comey reopened the Clinton email investigation. On October 30 at 4
a.m., the account released a series of documents - including information on the Clinton
Foundation, and President Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich, along with several other
notable files.
Two days before the Clinton Foundation tweet, the @FBIRecordsVault account tweeted records
of Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, which referred to him as a philanthropist.
At the time, the FBI said that the timing reflected " standard procedure for FOIA " in
which records that requested three or more times are released publicly and processed on a "
first in, first out " basis.
Rod Rosenstein should be fired immediately after this report comes out.
There's no excuse for a government employee like Rosenstein to be illegally stonewalling
Congress's request for documents. Rosenstein is covering up the fact that it was Obama who
ordered FBI informants to spy on the Trump campaign!
I see nothing damning in any of these details... Nothing that the guilty won't be able to
explain away... There will be at least one fall guy and my bet it will be either McCabe or
Stroczk... Everyone else will walk, same as it always was...
Immunity deals are vacated if the person granted immunity is later found to have lied, or
found to have willfully omitted relevant information in their affidavits.
I expect the report to be heavily redacted, I expect it to be "for national security
reasons" I expect it to be un-redacted about a week or 2 later, I expect when comparisons of
the redacted to the less redacted ones is done we will again see the mass abuse of the use of
"for National security" reason and I expect this Muller's sudo investigation to come to a
close. I hope for indictments and arrest of ex-heads of the Intel agencies for treason. I
hope for Clinton to be in chains and many others. I want the people involved with the Iranian
deal (never signed) to also face criminal charges as it looks like it was a drug money
laundering operation. Watch this for some info on that https://youtu.be/Rri-Ngj8QoE
Preistap rolled without a doubt, Page got caught red handed conspiring to commit a crime
by having the FISA judge just happen to be at a cocktail party. She rolled, she is a woman
and it's in their natural to save themselves.
Every week the Kabuki theater has a new Act. I can remember when "Release the Memo" was
going to tell all and all the bad guys were going to prison and Trump would put on a big
white hat and all would be right in the world.
Well, that came and went.....what changed?.........crickets........that's right nothing!
The only thing that ever changes are the costumes....cause the players are all the same.
Every time we turn around there is a new villain out to get Trump.....but then there is
documentation to prove they were out to get Trump.....and the documentation shows they broke
the law trying to get Trump.....then there are Congressional subpoenas.....Congressional
hearings......George Soros is funding something....to get Trump.....all the people that work
for Trump....are hired by Trump.....are out to get Trump or obstruct him from doing his job
for the American people.....Trump can't fire them.....So Trump tweets out to the American
people as if we can solve his problems for him. And on and on and on it goes.......BUT
NOTHING CHANGES.
Brexit? Yeah I remember that. The British people should be happy they let them
vote....cause that is all they are going to get......NOTHING CHANGES.
Immunity deals are vacated if the person granted immunity is later found to have lied, or
found to have willfully omitted relevant information in their affidavits.
Well God only knows if what was written on the 302's has any resemblance to any reality at
all. Frankly at this point I am not sure if that increases or decreases their chances of
being shown to have lied in order to get immunity.
When the info is released [RR] no more.
When the info is released no more Russia investigation.
It will factually conclude the corrupt nature by which the entire false narrative was created
all to 1) prevent the election of POTUS 2) delay/shelter/mask/hide all illegal activities by
Hussein/others during past 8 years.
DOJ/FBI cleanse vital as primary.
Huber coming.
These people HATE America.
FBI granting immunity for Absolutely nothing in return = free ticket.
sooo much more. Internal conflicts galore. Closed loop CYA INSIDER destruction of evidence
all over the place. Their job is to preserve not destroy evidence.
The root is neoliberal government that came to power in 2015
Notable quotes:
"... Why is any of this still "surprising" ..."
"... Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term "ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now. ..."
"... Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little hope. Keynes' BANCOR was the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible. ..."
Thanks for the link. I will be spending some time thinking of what Argentina would best
employ as best practices from where it is.
Would they be best off if they stopped issuing such high paying bonds? Should they pay them
all off and stop with it. It does appear to me that issuing bond after bond is one of the
single most dangerous things you can do.
It would appear to me to be a superior practice to sell what you produce for the best price
you can get on the open markets and dictate the value of your currency.
I'll have to do some more study here.
Again, thanks for the link.
You're uttering the discourse of the most recalcitrant neo-liberal cum
austerity-fundamentalists around.
The US doesn't tax soybean exports. Argentina needs to maximize its exports to earn
foreign exchange.'
it's misleading to say the least to draw a comparison between how the US handles soybean
exports and Argentina does it. They're around a quarter of the latter's exports, barely a
hundredth of the latter's.
The US will never have forex issues, Argentina does have them, and they are very serious.
You make it as if simply exporting commodities will fill the country's economy with USD,
while in truth those dollars will be neatly parked in tax heavens. Eliminating tax and
controls over Argentina's biggest exports -agricultural commodities- is in practice as if
these commodities were produced not in this country but in some foreign territory over which
only the very few who hold most of the land are sovereign. Which is what the current
administration has been doing for the past two years.
You also make it as if the current situation where the value of the peso is given over
completely to whatever short-term speculators feel like doing with it whenever LEBACs are due
is more desirable than the capital controls imposed by the previous government. These
prevented the hurtful rapid rise we're seeing in the exchange rate and reduced the negative
consequences of the fiscal deficit thus allowing significant investment in and expansion of
the real economy.
Addressing the fiscal deficit through increased value added and income tax is something
that clearly benefits the owner over the working class and depresses private consumption. I
can only sarcastically wonder who would want such a thing.
I don't feel the need or the duty to defend the previous government, but victimization of
the Sociedad Rural is something I just lack the words to condemn strongly enough
Argentina is probably the most self sufficient country on earth. It has everything,
fertile land that produces an abundance of wheat, barley, oats, rye, wine grapes. As well as
oil, gas. uranium, silver, gold, lead, copper, zinc. Foreigners are well aware of the wealth
in Argentina and are more than willing to lend to Argentinian governments and companies. This
is why Cristina Kirchner refused to give in to the US vulture funds as it dissuaded
foreigners from believing that reckless lending would always be rewarded. Macri ponied up,
restarting the old familiar economic doom cycle. As always its the old dog for the long road
and the pup for the puddle. Macri is now in a place that he chose, the puddle. As long as
foreig lenders remain reckless Argentina will remain mired in the mud, well short of its
potential. I was last there in 2008 when the country was booming. When I heard of Macri's
plan to pay the vulture funds I knew they were headed for disaster. This is just the
beginning.
Those "foreign lenders" can't be called "reckless." Some, maybe most among them always
seem to profit from the looting, whether by "bailouts" or "backstops" from governments like
the US that for "geopolitical reasons" facilitate that lending, or by extortion after the
first-round lenders (who know the risks, of course -- they are big boys and girls after all)
have been forestalled.
Call them "wreckers," maybe. Like early denizens of the Florida Keys, and other places,
who set fires or put up lamps that resembled lighthouses to lure passing ships onto the sands
and rocks where their cargoes and the valuables of their drowned passengers and crews could
be stripped.
Why is any of this still "surprising" to anyone?! Most countries in the world
(non G7/G8) are forced to go into foreign debt in order to pursue their "development"
initiatives. They are told they can export themselves out of trouble but the "free
trade" (more like unfair trade!) mantra puts them at a distinct disadvantage –
"unequal
exchange" was the term Marx used for it.
Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term
"ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and
trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now.
Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little
hope. Keynes' BANCOR was
the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left
to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible.
He hasn't completed it yet. But he gave us a sneak preview. Bernal is the national director
of the public interest group Stop Predatory Gambling.
If he were to call it right now, which would be the five worst states?
Oregon, West Virginia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania.
What about Nevada?
"We don't debate Nevada," Bernal told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last
week. "If you were going to have one place to gamble, have it be Nevada. I always exclude
Nevada."
What are the best five?
Utah, Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska – with New Hampshire and Vermont tied for the number
five slot.
"It's hard to do a ranking," Bernal said. "Oregon has one tribal casino. But the Oregon
lottery has video gambling machines. Technically they don't have many casinos in Oregon. But
Oregon is as bad as any state in the country in terms of harming the public."
"West Virginia is there as one of the worst. Oregon is right there. It's not a uniform
thing."
"Our goal is to have a ranking of the biggest predatory gambling states in the country. And
factor in the different forms of gambling they have."
How would you describe the politics behind the movement to stop predatory gambling?
"We are one of the most politically diverse movements in the United States. We have people
from all political stripes who work together. You would be hard pressed to find a more diverse
network of citizens involved with this."
Is your group opposed to all gambling?
"We are opposed to the role of government in actively promoting and sanctioning
commercialized gambling to citizens."
Isn't that all gambling?
"If you and I went bowling or were playing golf and we had a friendly wager on the game,
that is technically gambling. I'm not talking about prohibiting that. We are talking about
gambling for profit."
You would prohibit gambling for profit?
"We would prohibit running a gambling ring for profit, yes we would."
If you prohibited gambling for profit, you are prohibiting 99 percent of the gambling in the
United States, right?
"Running it as a business."
Isn't that 99 percent of gambling in the United States?
"No. There are all sorts of social gambling where people have Friday night poker gamers,
office Super Bowl pools."
What percentage of all gambling in the United States is gambling for profit?
"In 2016, the American people lost $117 billion to government sanctioned gambling."
How much did they lose in other gambling?
"The numbers on illegal gambling don't compare."
The legalized gambling piece is $117 billion in 2016.
"That's what they lost. What they wagered is close to $200 billion."
And illegal gambling is much less?
"Well, if you and I are in a Friday night poker game, that's gambling."
How about bookies?
"Those guys are doing it for profit. That's called illegal commercial gambling."
How big is that market?
"The American Gaming Association make up a number of $150 billion on illegal sports
gambling."
Give us your argument against government sanctioned gambling.
"The American people lost $117 billion to government sanctioned gambling in 2016. At the
same time one out of two citizens in this country own zero net assets – no stocks, no
property, no bonds."
"Here you have an enormous number of people who lack assets to grow into the middle class.
And the public voice of government is targeting that same constituency to play games that are
rigged against them."
"We start with this moral belief that all men and women deserve a fair opportunity to have
the best life possible for themselves and their family. That's why we show up every day to
compete on this."
"You have citizens losing $117 billion a year. And meanwhile, half the citizens don't have
any assets at all. The public voice of government to most citizens today no matter where you
live is gambling."
"We see a lottery class of citizens. You don't have a chance to improve your life. You are
stuck with a lack of mobility out of poverty. And your best hope is to try and play a rigged
game to make some cash to pay your rent every month."
"At the same time, government is advertising these games relentlessly to citizens. We spend
more than $1 billion a year advertising gambling to the American people on lotteries alone.
That pales in comparison to any other form of government advertising."
"When I was a kid growing up I used to see advertisements with John Wayne saying –
invest in your country – buy US Savings Bonds. The idea behind that was to encourage
citizens to build assets. Everyone points back to the 1950s where there was a growing middle
class and a chance for people to climb out of poverty."
"We had a high savings rate. People were building assets. That was an understated part of
keeping people in the middle class. We talk a lot about wages, but wages are only one part of
the equation. You also have to encourage people to build assets."
"We come off the great depression during World War II. And the public voice of government
then was – we have to put people to work. Imagine government encouraging people back then
to go out and spend their money on lottery tickets to raise the money for the war. Instead they
encouraged the citizens to go out and buys savings bonds, to invest in your country, invest in
your neighbor. It created this strong sense of a common good. It was stronger then than it is
today."
Of the $117 billion that the American people lost, how much of that came from poor
people?
"Without question, a large portion is coming from the poor. David Just and his team at
Cornell have done the best research on that. And it consistently shows that the people who are
participating come from the least favored sections of our society. And they are playing out of
financial desperation. It's a Hail Mary investment strategy."
"Two-thirds of the public doesn't gamble at all. You have one third of the public
participating in this government sanctioned gambling. The messaging that is targeting those
folks is – this is a chance to change your life. They sell scratch tickets that say
– money for life. This is going to be your answer to get ahead in society."
"The average person sees the lottery as Powerball and Megamillions. But the truth is that
those two games represent only a small portion of lottery revenues. Where lotteries make most
of their cash are on what are called scratch tickets. Scratch tickets are the number one money
maker, unless you are a state like Oregon that has these electronic gambling machines, which
are the most lucrative of all."
"Scratch tickets are these high frequency games where you play many times a day at higher
and higher wagered amounts."
What impact does gambling have on the poor?
"Government sanctioned gambling goes to the heart of many issues that the poor face. It's a
big factor in the lack of mobility out of poverty. By encouraging people to gamble on these
rigged games, instead of being able to build a savings account, they are spending on these
rigged games at the street corner on a daily basis."
"What are the key elements of mobility out of poverty? Family structure. If you can keep a
family unit together, you have a better shot of getting out of poverty than if you don't. Two
of the biggest factors shown to disrupt family structure are infidelity and financial
problems."
"Here you have a government program that directly attacks the family structure and the
family structure is the key to pulling people out of poverty. Government sanctioned gambling is
designed to get citizens to lose their cash as frequently as possible at higher wagered
amounts. It directly intersects with rising inequality. We define it as a lack of
opportunity."
[For the complete q/a format Interview with Les Bernal, see 32 Corporate Crime Reporter
24(11), June 7, 2018, print edition only .]
The term "national neoliberalism" should probably be adopted as the most succinct term for Trump economic policy
Notable quotes:
"... To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. ..."
"... But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world. ..."
"... The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion. ..."
Trump behavior at Canadian G7 meeting was boorish, but it is logical and is consistent which his previous stance on globalization:
he rejects neoliberal globalization.
Sasha Breger Bush proposed the term "national neoliberalism" to depict the transition from "classic neoliberalism" which has
been started with the election of Trump.
I think the term really catches the essence of the election of Trump. and should probably be adopted as a succinct description
of Trump economic policy.
The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan
outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see
himself as a global citizen.
Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading network. In
other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized system
(this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization
trends around the world).
I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape of U.S. allies
and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.
But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the
cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic.
Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the
fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States.
To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican
Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate
tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education
and deregulate finance.
But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching
big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans.
JackD, June 10, 2018 9:58 am
@Likbez: "Sure, President Trump, etc" is your important sentence. It is the immediate need. First things, first.
ilsm, June 10, 2018 3:12 pm
In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods
and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the
ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world.
Trump is not tearing apart NATO anyone not earning money is a PNAC think tanks knows NATO has become an aggression against
Russia with similar intent as Hitler.
Grabbing Sevastopol and aiding Russians in territory occupied by Kyiv are [bold] defensive moves. The threat of Chinese islands
in the South China Sea is the US Navy super carriers intimidations has no career raiding Hainan.
rps, June 10, 2018 7:42 pm
I was curious if Yglesias is a Canadian since his editorial sided with the G7 leaders stance against Trump's fair-trade often
labelled as 'protectionism' of USA industries. He's a New Yorker as I pondered what's his stake in this political tirade against
Trump's pro-America versus anti-globalist policies?
It appears that the media has glided over the fact Trump had suggested to the other G7 leaders that all trade barriers, including
tariffs and subsidies, be eliminated, ""You go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy free." Protectionist Canadian
PM Trudeau howled at a press conference after Trump had left on his way to Singapore. Why? Is it because Trudeau is committed
to the welfare of Canadians and their industries? How dare the president of the USA- in turn, advocate for citizenry and country
as does his G7 counterparts for their countries.
The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods.
It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade
deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion.
US citizens and their jobs were swindled with cheaper foreign goods flooding American businesses and stores as good manufacturing
jobs headed overseas. Jobs that created the middle class and all their earned benefits and standard of living decreased/disappeared
quickly with NAFTA and the WTO.
Concisely, trade deficits destroyed the middle class, the working class, blue collar, and in turn, increased poverty and homelessness.
Destroyed small town anywhere in the USA with manufacturing and jobs fleeing overseas in search of cheap labor. Go travel across
the USA and see the boarded up towns, walk the streets of Flint Michigan, Detroit, Martinsville Virginia, Gary Indiana, Freeport
Il, etc. Throw a dart at a USA map and you'll hit a town devastated by 'free' to lose your job trade. In 2014, 2.3 million job
losses due to trade with China. Job losses in the millions have been slowly replaced with 'service' jobs and/or $8.00 an hour
part-time no benefits workers as the new norm.
Remember when Walmart's original slogan was "Buy American"? Sam Walton before he died, was big on "Buy American," and it appeared
in signs in the stores and on TV ads. His heirs quickly changed it to "Buy Chinese" destroying the american dream and small town
USA.
Yet Yglesias' preference is all for the unbalanced trade with our G7 frenemies and punishing a president who chooses fair trade
practices to ensure US jobs for American citizens. Makes me wonder who or what Yglesias truly advocates for, the NWO or the country
of origin on his passport?
"What we must do is this: revise our tariff on the basis of a reciprocal exchange of goods, allowing other Nations to buy and
to pay for our goods by sending us such of their goods as will not seriously throw any of our industries out of balance Such objectives
as these three, restoring farmers' buying power, relief to the small banks and home-owners and a reconstructed tariff policy,
are only a part of ten or a dozen vital factors. But they seem to be beyond the concern of a national administration which can
think in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the top down rather than
permanent relief from the bottom up. It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way. It has waited until something
has cracked and then at the last moment has sought to prevent total collapse.
It is high time to get back to fundamentals. It is high time to admit with courage that we are in the midst of an emergency
at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to meet it." "The Forgotten Man" speech, 1937. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Since Clinton signed NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO, American jobs and industry left our shores seeking the lowest common denominator-
cheap slave labor. To paraphrase FDR into the late 20th and early 21st century, "Clinton and his successors concern of their national
administrations thought in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the
top down rather than permanent relief from the bottom up.It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way."
Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:16 pm
Nothing personally Rps, but you do not get Triffin Dilemma and global reserve currency. Please no more NAFTA obsession when
no jobs left with that deal and exports excelerated. The global reserve currency and booming financial markets create a surplus
in services over goods. It also creates the need for a goods deficit to stabilize the financial system. You cannot wave a wand
and cure something that cannot be cured. You need a major depression to rebalance and drive capital from america.
Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:19 pm
Likbez, Neoliberalism IS American. Trump is pro-East Asia
Many Trump supporters, and even some on the left, like to talk about the "Deep State"
secretly having complete control of our government, thus rendering our elected leaders to be
nothing more than meaningless figureheads. Let's investigate.
Long before the term 'Deep State' became popular, the term "Military Industrial Complex" was
coined by President Dwight Eisenhower.
He gave his now famous Military Industrial Complex (MIC) speech on Jan 17, 1961.
During his ominous farewell, Ike mentioned that the US was only just past the halfway point
of the century and we had already seen 4 major wars. He then went on to talk about how the MIC
was now a major sector of the economy. Eisenhower then went on to warn Americans about the
"undue influence" the MIC has on our government. He warned that the MIC has massive lobbying
power and the ability to press for unnecessary wars and armaments we would not really need, all
just to funnel money to their coffers.
Jump to Ike's warning about the "unwarranted influence... by the Military-Industrial
Complex" at 8:41
His warning though proven correct, was sadly not heeded. Within a few years JFK was
assassinated shortly after giving his "Secret government speech" warning the American people
about "secret governments and secret organizations that sought to have undue control of the
government.
JFK was in his grave for less than 9-months before Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a
series of outlandish lies about a fictitious attack on a US naval ship that never happened,
which caused the US to enter the Vietnam war.
President Johnson lied his way into a war with North Vietnam and within less than a year
would joke that "maybe the attack never happened". By the time the war ended in 1973, Johnson's
bundle of lies had killed 2.45 million people.
The MIC however, saw the Vietnam war as a great victory and a template for the future
success to their objectives. Ever since the Vietnam War, the MIC has urged the government to
enter into as many ambiguous and unwinnable wars as possible, since unwinnable wars are also
never-ending. Never-ending wars equate to never-ending revenue streams for the war
industry.
Eisenhower warned us about the concept of one particular industry taking control of our
government, but sadly his predictions fell of deaf ears.
Since Eisenhower's time several other over "Industrial Complexes" have followed the MIC
example and taken control of our government to suit their needs as well. Their objective is to
buy out politicians in order to control the purse strings of Congress and they have been highly
successful.
The list of these ÏC industries includes, but is not limited to the companies
below:
1. The Drug Industrial Complex. (DIC)
The prescription drug industry has massive control of our government and our health care
system. A recent Mayo Clinic study concluded that 70% of Americans are on at least one
prescription drug.
The most tragic example is opioids, though similar arguments can also be made in reference
to the anti-depressant epidemic, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
The sicker America is, the better it is for the DIC.
The drug lobby is 8x larger than the gun lobby and is indirectly responsible for the deaths
of between 59.000 and 65,000 people in 2016 alone, but if we dig deeper, that number could
easily be 2 or 3 times higher, Since deaths related to opioids from infection related to opioid
related infections are extremely common Anti-depressants are being prescribed 400% more than
they were in the 1990's. They are commonly prescribed to adolescent women and we live up to the
name "Prozac Nation" when we realize that 1 in 5 women between the ages of 40 and 59 are taking
antidepressants. The list of other prescription medicines to enhance the DIC revenue streams is
extensive.
There are two primary industrial complex rules when it comes to prescription drug centric
treatment:
Firstly, no curing is allowed, ever. Treatment of conditions with temporary benefits is
allowed, but healing is not permissible, since it interrupts revenue streams.
And second, any and all "natural" or homeopathic treatment whether it be related to diet,
supplements vitamins, anti-oxidants or physical exercise/meditation should all be relegated
to "quackery." Doctors who do not adhere to the prescription drug method of treating patients
should also be referred to as adherents to "quackery" and should be reprimanded, fined and in
extreme cases have their medical licenses revoked.
2. Real Estate Industrial Complex. (RIC)
Goal: Keep housing prices rising as much as possible, year after year after year.
How this is implemented: Endorse the borrowing of money to entice people into buying
excessively large homes in order to promote the "dream" of home ownership. Once people buy into
this scheme, they are then saddled with massive home taxes to their city and the burden of the
taxes utilities that go along with owning an excessively large home. Stigmatize anyone who is
over the age of 25 and lives in the same domicile as a parent or grandparent.
Make sure all media channels repeat over and over incessantly that high real estate prices
are "signs of a great economy," while ignoring the crippling effect high home prices have on
working class families who can barely pay their mortgage.
3. College Industrial Complex
(CIC)
The average tuition in 1971-1972 was $1832.00 and now it is officially over $31,000.00.
There are over 60 colleges and universities where the tuition has already exceeded
$60,000.00 per/year.
A college education used to be something that people saved and paid cash for, but now there
has been a cultural shift where students are expected to take out loans that are often in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain a college degree.
Why is this all so expensive? When we look at our universities and colleges, we see an
obsession with elaborate new buildings and sports stadiums, more than actual learning.
There are several emerging/innovative ideas to make a college education better, faster and
far more affordable. Such concepts probably won't take hold until the inevitable collapse of
the entire educational system takes place.
4. Health Insurance Industrial Complex
(HIC)
Much of the US healthcare system is now governed by the "Healthcare Affordability Act"
passed by the Obama administration in 2010.
The HIC proved how powerful they were when Congress was not allowed to read the legislation
before voting for it, publicly displaying that the HIC who wrote the bill behind closed doors
is more powerful than Congress itself.
What transparent public committees were behind this important legislation?
In reality, there was no transparency at all, this is stated clear as day by Healthcare
Affordability Act primary architect Jonathan Gruber stated: "Lack of transparency is a huge
political advantage, Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically,
that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
The Speaker of the House at the time was Nancy Pelosi, who famously said from the leadership
podium as House Speaker: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'
Our elected officials were not allowed to read the most important legislation of the past 30
years before voting for or against it. There is no greater testimony to the level of
dysfunction in Congress than the Healthcare Affordability Act, formed by secret committees and
then not allowing Congress to read it before voting.
* * *
Let's think back to 1961 when Eisenhower warned us about what would become the Vietnam War.
The American people's ignoring his warning caused arms manufacturers and big business to assume
nearly complete control of US government.
If we had listened to Ike, millions of people would not have died in the wars of the last 57
years and we would have trillions of dollars less in debt. Perhaps we still have time to heed
his warning before our entire country collapses under the weight of corruption, crippling debt
and never-ending wars, let's hope so.
* * *
Kevin Paul is the founder of Alternativemediahub.com, which refers to itself as "The
megaphone of independent journalism." Born in MA, he came within 2% of winning the R party
nomination to oppose Ted Kennedy in 2006 and holds degrees in business and political
science.
"... Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today , especially for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook ." ..."
The Trump phenomenon, to paraphrase Lincoln, who may not have said this at all, "you can fool
some of the people all of the time," deeply parallels the elections of 1824 and 1828. This is when
consummate "outsider," a tough-as-nails backwoods "westerner" and war hero, Andrew Jackson, spouting
conspiracy theories about corruption and "elites" rose to the presidency.
Trump advisor Steve Bannon actually studied Jackson and his rise to prominence, followed by a checkered
presidency of broken treaties and violent retribution against his personal enemies.
Both Trump and Jackson brought first ladies to the White House with "deeply singed" reputations.
This is where the comparison ends. Jackson typically settled his personal grudges with a pistol or sword,
not his mouth or lawyers. He warred on the Rothschilds' agents and their national bank set up by Federalist
Alexander Hamilton.
Above all, Jackson was the "real deal," opposing elites who were then as they are today, utterly corrupt.
Trump is certainly not the "real deal," not with a cabinet of the "worst of the worst" of corrupt elites and
policies and appointments intended to stifle democratic institutions.
The Central Banks
The
Fed
Trump's court appointments
, rushed through congress, most
unvetted and unqualified, dark histories of personal bias and corruption, many young enough to serve for
decades, are intended to protect and serve the corrupt elites from public scrutiny and any legal process.
At the root of it all, in America as with America's NATO allies, are the central banks that date back
centuries.
Jackson, in 1833, shut down the bank run by Nicholas Biddle and backed by powerful "bought and paid for"
Senator Henry Clay. Jackson did so defending the constitution which clearly prohibited a central bank which
the founding fathers recognized as the root cause of Europe's continual wars.
A year later, in 1834, congress censured Jackson for abusing presidential power. His congress was "owned"
by Biddle and his European masters.
Today, we have a "dime store" Jackson, someone with the swagger and
none of the real muscle. Perhaps Trump saw another example of an American who stood against the central
bank, that being John Kennedy and his fate and that of his brother Robert.
Were one to follow this vein, as to who owns and controls the central banks, and how the restoration of
the central bank in 1913 re-empowered America's European masters under the Federal Reserve Act, a fuller
backdrop for understanding America's crippled political scene would entail. Our focus is elsewhere, and
America's own debt slavery is an important component for certain.
American Terrorism
How
does the world see the US?
Increasingly
, the world is terrified of
America. A single nation drowning in 21 trillion dollars of bankruptcy is blackmailing the world.
America clearly can't manage its own affairs at home, a nation with a third of its citizens living in or
near absolute poverty, a nation ruled by functional illiterates or faithless warmongers, yet America
continues its military crusade for what it calls "justice and freedom" that its own citizens seldom see.
Sanctions, trade wars and military bullying focused on rebuilding world divides, restoring world tensions
and finding adversaries where partners or friends may well have been, is the watchword of American policy.
Why?
America is breaking the rules. There was always "wiggle room" in the
hodge-podge of international law, room for "justified war" and a door opened for the "victor's justice" we
saw at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals after World War II.
Even that is gone today, and America's domestic political meltdown is largely responsible.
Were one to look to the roots, even before Machiavelli, one might turn to Sun Tzu. In his Art of War, Sun
Tzu advised a combatant to always build a golden bridge for a retreating enemy. In the world of nuclear
brinksmanship, this might be more aptly be expressed as a lesson most learned as children on the school
playing fields.
Never humiliate a potential adversary.
Background
Unrest
in US
At one time
, Americans themselves were politically astute, at
least an activist core, including up to 40 million union members when they held sway over politics.
At one time, the primary concern of Americans was economics, the day to day issues of job security,
rising prices and economic survival for the family.
Demagogues would drum beat about the dangers of communism or the threat of drugs. Hollywood would depict,
almost continually, a Soviet occupation of America, films like Red Dawn or even, jokingly, The Russians are
Coming, The Russians Are Coming. No sane person took it seriously
However, as most recognize, sanity isn't now nor may ever have been the strong suit for many Americans.
Why Things Are Different
Depiction
of Andrew Jackson at Battle of New Orleans
America was
always
strife with racial, religious and class differences. What few recognize is the regionalism that was
initially expressed in the political aspirations of Andrew Jackson, America's first populist "outsider."
From the Atlantic, November 2016:
"Newt Gingrich has compared Trump to Jackson for some time. Rudolph Giuliani
declared on election night that it was 'like Andrew Jackson's victory. This is the people beating the
establishment.' That may seem a comforting comparison, since it locates Donald Trump in the American
experience and makes his election seem less of a departure.
Is Trump's victory really like Jackson's? On the surface, yes: In 1828, an
'outsider' candidate appealed directly to the people against elites he called corrupt. A deeper look at
Jackson's victory complicates the comparison, but still says much about America then and now.
Jackson's road to victory began with a defeat. He was a Tennessee politician
and plantation owner turned soldier, a man who, unlike Trump, had deep experience in government. As a
general, he became the greatest hero of the War of 1812, and capitalized on his fame by running for
president in 1824. But the electoral votes were split between four candidates. The presidency was decided by
the House of Representatives, which chose John Quincy Adams, the highly qualified secretary of state.
1833
Democratic cartoon shows Jackson destroying the "Devil's Bank" (Photo credit, Wikipedia)
Jackson politely congratulated the winner but was seething. He soon declared the system was rigged. The
Jacksonians' phrase was 'bargain and corruption' -- they said the House speaker, Henry Clay, had thrown the
vote in exchange for being named secretary of state.
This conspiracy theory added an element of rage to Jackson's basic argument
that he was simply owed the presidency. Although the House had voted in accordance with the Constitution,
Jackson insisted that he should have automatically won because 'the majority' of the people supported him.
(He'd actually won a plurality of the popular vote, 40 percent, which was politically significant but had no
legal bearing.)
With an eye to the next election, he set out to upend the political system,
which had been running predictably for a generation. A party founded by Thomas Jefferson had installed four
consecutive presidents. Most elections were not even close. Relatively few people voted, and many lacked
voting rights. But the franchise was expanding to include all white men, and boisterous new political forces
were sweeping the growing nation.
Jackson and his allies spent four years building a popular movement in favor
of majority rule. They worked to delegitimize President Adams, promoting the "corrupt bargain" conspiracy
theory and blocking his programs in Congress. In their 1828 rematch, Jackson defeated Adams in a landslide.
His 1829 inauguration was recorded as a triumph of the people, who mobbed the White House in such numbers
that they trashed it. It's this moment to which Giuliani referred on election night 2016."
Defining the Problem
War
is a racket and a habit. (Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, by Viktor Vasnetsov, 1887)
In using "Jacksonesque" methods
without Jackson, the man, with his own experiences and
moral center as a balance, Bannon and Trump, now Trump with Bolton and Giuliani, personify not just
corruption. The world is seeing a darkness unleashed, an America wielded as a sword for globalist forces.
What is different today is that forces that reined in the "globalist cabal," for lack of another term
acceptable for publication, no longer exist.
The formula used to take America to war time and time again, 1898 with Spain or the two wars with
Germany, jingoism, black propaganda, false flag terrorism, seen again on 9/11, has its limitations. When the
US went to full scale war in Vietnam, justified by the Tonkin Gulf incident, reputedly a false flag attack
on the US Navy by imaginary North Vietnamese patrol boats, the public eventually rose in relative "unison,"
to stop the war.
Most
of these real men are now lost to the ages, prematurely dead from war toxin spray. How we miss their race.
Eventually, under the Clinton presidency, America had not only largely demilitarized, but had also entered
into a series of treaties limiting strategic nuclear capabilities. The end result was a pay down on the
national debt and an impeachment attempt against Clinton.
The
false flag event that drove the fragile, drugged American psyche over the cliff
This
was followed by the rigged election of 2000, then 9/11, then abrogated treaties, ten trillion in new debt,
police state legislation, near total military rule and a permanent war footing.
What was different, what separated America of 1965-1970 and America of 2000?
The unions were gone and with them the political leaders who answered to the working class that fought
the wars and paid the bills.
Campaign finance legislation was erased by a biased Supreme Court under Citizens United v. US in 2005.
Corporate control
of media was complete.
Ragtag extremist billionaires, the Koch's, Adelson, Scaife, DeVos, Coors and a series of offshore
"oligarchs" bought congress, as had been done during the Jackson presidency nearly two centuries before.
Then there is the internet. Where Jackson's electoral environment included limited suffrage, men only,
property owners only, voting only by the few, the larger electorate of the 21st century were subject to
advanced manipulation and thought control, real not imaginary, through social media.
In fact, two realities had been created, perhaps even more, separate
worlds for each recognized and identified "type," based on psychological triggers. Think tanks and major
military and intelligence contracting firms received and continue to receive billions to study and tune
capabilities, not just altering opinions but further, altering the ability to perceive and judge.
Thus, when Jackson stood against congress, he had the support of the people, the frontiersmen, the
farmers, the working classes, people now "chasing their own tails" at the behest of "fake everything."
Conclusion
What we are left with
is an America capable of targeting any nation, capable of
capriciousness unimagined by those who see it, who suffer it, those who assume rationality exists though not
evidenced.
It was Baudelaire (1864, Le Joueur Genereaux):
"la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!"
(the most beautiful trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!)
Again we return to the issue of the unasked question of "why?" We know who, we know what, but as the
question of "why" is never asked, then we are then faced with another question, more basic, more telling.
Why are we afraid to ask a question? Why do we choose to turn away from what we know to be the presence of
pervasive evil itself as a prime motivator?
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has
worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues.
He's a senior editor and chairman of the board of
Veterans
Today
, especially for the online magazine "
New
Eastern Outlook
."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a
Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election,
according to
Bloomberg .
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the
delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of
three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing
propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters .
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into
the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's
active "interference operations" against the United States.
"The substance of the government's evidence identifies uncharged individuals and entities
that the government believes are continuing to engage in interference operations like those
charged in the present indictment," prosecutors wrote.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates,
which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus
undermining ongoing and future national security operations ," according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with
crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and
co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors wrote. -
Bloomberg
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with
the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
And Concord Management decided to fight it...
As
Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was
perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would
appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have
obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for
interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the
Mueller Switch Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges.
In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith
firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting . Josh
Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here
. -
Powerline Blog
Politico' s Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, " Concord could force
prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that
might undermine the prosecution's theories ."
In a mad scramble to put the brakes on the case, Mueller's team tried to delay the trial -
saying that Concord never formally accepted the court summons related to the case , wrapping
themselves in a "cloud of confusion" as Powerline puts it. "Until the Court has an opportunity
to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial
appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea
entertained."
The Judge, Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee, didn't buy it - denying Mueller a delay in
the high-profile trial.
The Russians hit back - filing a
response to let the court know that " [Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as
provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea
of not guilty . [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the
summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel's motion is pettifoggery. "
And the Judge agreed ...
A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller's request to delay the first
court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens
with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the
2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no
explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the
scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms
charged in the case . -
Politico
In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing
him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment , potentially jeopardizing the
PR aspect of the entire "Trump collusion" probe.
And now Mueller is pointing to Russian "interference operations" in a last-ditch effort
.
Of note, Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a major hand grenade in the
"pro-Trump" Russian meddling narrative in February when he fired off a series of tweets the day
of the Russian indictments. Most notably, Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising
purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election, were hardly pro-Trump, and they
was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans", something which Americans have been quite
adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth,
income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost.
The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists
online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American
voters .
...
"knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Wait a minute, hold on - what exactly is the 'crime' here? Facebook ads that said Clinton
sucks? That's a crime now? I'm missing something obviously - I just don't know what. Anyone
willing and able to shed light on the crime alleged here?
How about CNN and NYT absolutely slanted and biased coverage? [And no - 'the press' in the
1st Amendment meant and means still the written word, not news corporations].
So far as I know "meddling" isn't a crime outside of Scooby Doo cartoons and MSNBC
I believe that Mueller is, rightly, being told to "Put up or shut up"? The discovery phase
should be very interesting and the only way to avoid that is to drop the charges, which will
indeed completely destroy Mueller's PR strategy. And with it, what remains of his
credibility...
I can picture Mueller sitting at the poker table with a huge stack. As he looks over his
hand, with a sly look on his face and a wink, he goes all in. Surprise suprise, they call his
bet. Now we wait for the reveal except that Bobby is screaming, wait, no fair, it was an
accident, I didn't mean to go all in. Turn those machines back on! The dealer then looks him
dead in the eye and says "Tough shit" as he turns over Mueller's losing hand.
mueller, you are so screwed. so supremely and royally screwed. now your investigation is
coming to a crashing halt without POTUS having to step in. all that was ever needed is
transparency. and now the good guys will have the IG report, Session's investigation, the
declassification of spy-gate materials and discovery from your Keystone cop operation all at
once.
best timeline ever.
take it from janus, extracting a troll from the interwebs and thinking you can crush him
IRL ALWAYS blows up in your face.
the only way you can win the game is with the deck stacked like a tower in your favor and
warping the rules to effect a desired outcome. tptb, you are up against superior people with
superior minds animated by an indomitable will. devastating defeat is inevitable.
That is part of the defense's argument. Many are asking "what is the actual crime" being
charged. Mueller charged them with campaign finance violations and failing to register as a
foreign agent. These crimes have a high burden of proof in that they require the state to
prove that the defendant knowingly broke the laws. No foreign corporation has ever been
charged with these crimes before. And the defense argues that there is nothing in the
indictment to show that they knew they were breaking these laws - hence no way to prove the
case against them. They also raise the 1st Amendment as defense saying political speech is
protected.
Did/do these companies have any other function besides buying $500 worth of "I Like Trump"
ads like selling something? So only Americans can have free speech in America, unless you
identify you and your coworkers as foreign free speech speaker-people? It sounds too tricky.
Only a progressive could figure out the legalities involved, as they are the free speech
professionals. The rest of us must get permission first, and then it will only be grafted IF
we say things that are officially approved by the free speech Nazi party.
Just think if these Ruskies could have voted! It would have been 30-40 more Trump votes
and he would have really really won bigly.
Can't Mueller be prosecuted himself if he knows there is no collusion or whatever... No
Russian anything, yet he continues to steal tax payer monies to fabricate false leads? He has
no incentive to be honest or to limit the investigation and if having the case remain open
benefits his party affiliates and he himself financially. If I got hired to do a one day job
and lied to make it a one year job, wouldn't that be theft of services?? The cuss must show
or he must go!
Oh it's way more than that.
That is the kind of language Oliver Wendell Holmes would have used back in the
day. It also brings to mind Samuel Clemens. This is a very sharp team indeed.
Mule-er basically drew to an inside straight, and got busted. The Russkies
called his bluff, and his hand is 7-8-10-Jack-four. Sorry, Ereberto,
no nine, just a "nein." Discovery is a bitch! I suspect that further
developments are going to be highly entertaining. Judge: "can we see your
evidence of wrongdoing." Mule-er: "That's highly classified."
In its earliest English uses, "pettifogger" was two separate words: "pettie
fogger." "Pettie" was a variant spelling of "petty," a reasonable inclusion in
a word for someone who is disreputable and small-minded.
Who would have believed decent Americans would ever applaud Russians
kicking the shit out of federal law enforcement? Do I hear "The World
Turned Upside Down" in the distance? Should Mueller change his name
to Cornwallis?
How about "corrupt" shill? Remember, Mueller headed the FBI before and
after the 9/11 attacks. Did Mueller's FBI investigate? No; they covered up
for 9/11 perpetrators. Thanks a lot Mueller.
If I were the judge, I would refuse any motion Mueller makes to avoid
releasing evidence, and if he doesn't do it within a matter of hours, his
entire staff would be getting perp walked for contempt. Let Mueller manage
his investigation from a prison cell, like some drug kingpin.
The US government has already wasted $200 million on this stupid "pettifoggery".
Some one, any one, put an end to this ridiculous dog and pony show.
Mueller, and the Justice Dept. are now the laughing stock of the world. We
need to save a little face, and have this SOB shot for the good of the
nation. This Prick doesn't give two shits for the American people, or the
nation that he is paid to serve.
These guys were likely just pushing click-bait on Facebook. And since it is
election season, it is easy for them to riff off the candidates.
Mueller
giving it any legitimacy shows he is either out of touch with how the internet
works or has his own special case of Trump derangement syndrome.
Accuse others for which you are guilty is in the dnc handbook. The only
illegal activity involved the DNC, team Hillary, and operatives in the FBI,
CIA, DOJ, and the IRS.
This indictment is a total fujkin joke. In Mueller's world he can charge
you with a crime but refuse to show the evidence. Proves that he has no
interest in serving justice. His goals are to defame and bankrupt enemies
of the deep swamp.
When the truth comes out and i was Russian company or individual affected
by this assholes i would sue US for lost business and for defamation and
demand reparations and let THe black Jesus and Clinton Killer Gang and
their lackies pay for it.
Yes, very good links but, this is different in my opinion.
Mueller attempted to bring a criminal
domestic
case
against
international
personas that he is now
unwilling to go through the
discovery process with
(his claim) because of...wait for it...national security.
He never intended or wanted for
this case
to go to trial (but he had to show "something" for
his efforts) it is malpractice (at the American bar level)
and he knew it when he filed it.
When a prosecutor files charges against anyone (here) he
is in essence saying
"We have the evidence to
prosecute your honor and we are going to show it to you."
now he is saying he can't or will not produce that evidence
in the venue he chose to prosecute in.
Probably because he (and his crack Hillary lawyers)
didn't do the homework required until after filing charges
(idiot
fucktard that he and they are...lol)
as Concord's
new CEO is none other than one Dimitry Utkin, founder of the
Wagner Group, a Rodnover, for whatever thats worth ;-)
It's not just embarrassing it's criminal. He wants unlimited scope to
find "something". He indicts Russians knowing they won't show up for
court or so he thought and now he wants to limit the evidence because
he has no hand. Don't interfere with your enemy when he's mucking it
up. Mueller is going to be indicted for all of this, Uranium One
being the least of his problems. If Mr. Mueller wants to question me
the first thing I say is how much money did you give Whitey Bulger?
Muller got caught, tried to make headlines with Real Russians thinking they
would not show up and one did he is now in a PANIC - Muller needs to
produce the evidence or shut up and go away with his band of 13 anti Trump
staff.
"The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to
be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media
in order to sow discord among American voters."
Cough cough, none of that is illegal, 1st Amendment, even for
Russians
Softpanorama
Les Bernal is working on a ranking of the states with the worst predatory gambling problems.
